1001 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 7, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
A President's Brief Respite
BYLINE: By JIM RUTENBERG; Allison Kopicki and Mark Landler contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; NEWS ANALYSIS; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1051 words
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Presidential candidates can usually count on luxuriating in a few days of warm feelings from their convention as they ride the high generated by impassioned supporters and cross their fingers for rising poll numbers.
But for President Obama, the party could come to an abrupt halt even before he breaks camp here Friday morning when the government releases its employment report for August, a blunt reminder of the forces working against him.
The Democrats inside the hall here on Thursday night as Mr. Obama accepted his party's nomination for a second term defined the race as a fundamental clash of visions between Republicans who want an every-man-for-himself society and Democrats who want to ensure that the middle class gets a fair shake -- what Mr. Obama called ''the clearest choice of any time in a generation.''
But that message of promise for the future is up against the immediacy of persistently high unemployment, which, no matter what Friday's report shows, is unlikely to drop so much before Election Day that it will recede as an issue.
So the biggest question for Mr. Obama as he heads into the home stretch against Mitt Romney and the Republicans is whether he can make the race about sufficiently big and compelling issues, and draw a sharp enough contrast between what his policies and Mr. Romney's would mean for the middle class in the years ahead, to keep the outcome from being swayed by constant reminders of the shaky state of the economy.
The answer, and the result in November, will turn in large part on which is more potent: Mr. Obama's argument that he offers a way toward ''a better place'' for struggling middle class voters whom Democrats say Mr. Romney does not understand, or the more troublesome reality of the moment for voters as they ponder Mr. Romney's question about whether they are better off than four years ago.
From the start, Mr. Obama's campaign aides acknowledged that they were attempting something of a Houdini act in seeking to push the focus of the election ''Forward,'' as their slogan goes, beyond the ''now'' that is harder to pretty up.
Now leaving the cloister of his national convention, and the free network airtime it gave him to put forward his strongest case unopposed, Mr. Obama will be in an environment in which Mr. Romney can use his well-financed general election bank account to outspend him on advertising and hammer home the message that Mr. Obama had his chance and failed.
Obama campaign officials are also mindful that any major economic disruption in the next two months could impede their efforts to focus on the future. They are tracking oil futures so they have a handle on possible gasoline price increases and watching developments in Europe to be on top of any possible financial crisis as much as they are analyzing Gallup tracking polls.
Even before Mr. Obama gave his acceptance speech here, Mr. Romney's aides were pointing to the statistics that went unmentioned in the progression of feel-good speeches that at times made the Time Warner Cable Arena feel like a hermetically sealed Democratic Happyland.
''The middle class has been crushed these past four years, and all the president is offering is more negative commercials and stale ideas,'' said Stuart Stevens, Mr. Romney's strategist. ''As Governor Romney said, 'It's still the economy and we're not stupid.' ''
Democrats, who play down the prospects of any major polling lift for Mr. Obama, acknowledge that they do not have an easy case to make. ''It's hard,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. ''But don't forget this: If people can be given an explanation of the past, they want to believe in the future.''
Mr. Schumer argued that former President Bill Clinton had managed to do that here on Wednesday night with his point-by-point look at the historically grim economy Mr. Obama inherited and the 4.5 million private jobs created during his term -- not enough to cover all the damage from the recession, which Mr. Clinton said he could not have fixed in one term himself.
Mr. Obama's aides say they are convinced that voters are more likely to base their choice for president more on what they think will be best for them in the next four years than on what transpired in the last four.
They are taking comfort in the idea that they have succeeded in turning the race into ''a choice between two different paths,'' as Mr. Obama put it on Thursday night -- beating back Mr. Romney's attempts to define the election as a referendum on Mr. Obama's tenure. Any doubt that he wanted that message to get through was dispelled when it used the word ''choice'' some 20 times in his 38-minute speech.
Democrats say Mr. Romney, who is running close to Mr. Obama in national polls, helped along the process of making the election a choice by picking as his running mate Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, whose conservative budget proposals make the policy differences between the parties that much clearer.
They are battling history as much as the current reality. Polls are full of the sort of numbers that have ended presidencies in the past, with frequent poor marks on his handling of the economy and a sense that the country is moving in the wrong direction.
But Mr. Obama's aides are counting on the notion that each election is unique, not fated by history. And they have other poll numbers that give them heart, including those showing that majorities agree that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes, that job creation is helped along by spending on public projects, and that blame for the economic situation rests more with his predecessor than with him.
''We put the last four years in perspective last night about what the situation was when we took office,'' Stephanie Cutter, Mr. Obama's deputy campaign manager, said Thursday, ''and how we're on the right path.''
That made the delegates and lawmakers in the arena here feel better. ''A lot of people came in feeling sort of nervous after the Republican convention,'' said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont. ''I feel a lot more optimism than I did before I came,'' he said.
Whether that optimism will prove justified will likely depend upon not only Friday's jobs report but on the one after that, the one after that and on Mr. Obama's ability to keep the focus beyond them.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/us/politics/job-numbers-may-undermine-obama-convention-bump.html
LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News Analysis
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1002 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 7, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
The Ad Campaign: Recalling a Less Friendly Time
BYLINE: By SARAH WHEATON
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; THE CAUCUS; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 403 words
3:12 p.m. | Updated Bill Clinton proved Wednesday night to be one of President Obama's most forceful and substantive surrogates, but he has hardly been the most consistent. In fact, in a new ad, Mitt Romney's campaign is reminding voters that Mr. Clinton was once a sharp critic of Mr. Obama, in 2008.
"Give me a break," Mr. Clinton said in New Hampshire on the eve of that state's primary more than four years ago, when Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. Obama were in a tight race for the Democratic nomination. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," he said of Mr. Obama's position on the Iraq war.
Mr. Clinton's words drew immediate criticism from Democrats, especially African-Americans.
The ad notes that Mr. Clinton is sounding a different tune today, though it casts him as "a good soldier, helping his party's president" after being called upon to support a "failing campaign."
The narrator then recites recent unemployment figures and says that the middle class is falling "further behind" before the "Give me a break" clip rolls a second time.
The Romney camp has spoken well of Mr. Clinton's presidency. Stumping in Iowa on Wednesday, Representative Paul D. Ryan, the vice-presidential nominee, noted Mr. Clinton's economic successes and said that Mr. Romney would save the welfare reforms that the 42nd president enacted.
The Romney campaign declined to provide any details about where the ad was running, its standard practice. But after Mr. Clinton's 48-minute convention speech, one thing is clearly better off than it was four years ago: the Clinton-Obama relationship.
Update: A statement from Lis Smith, an Obama spokeswoman, echoed Mr. Clinton's words from Wednesday night: "It takes a lot of brass for Mitt Romney to cite President Clinton, who last night dismantled the falsehoods upon which Mitt Romney's entire campaign is based. As President Clinton said, President Obama 'inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery,' and because of his leadership, we're moving forward. But Mitt Romney and Congressman Ryan would make things worse and take us back to the same failed trickle-down policies that caused the crash and devastated the middle class in the first place. The Romney campaign's too cute by half ads can't change that simple fact."
This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.
GRAPHIC
URL: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/clinton-was-not-always-an-obama-fan-romney-ad-recalls/
LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1003 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
September 7, 2012 Friday
After a Disappointing Jobs Report, Romney Attacks Obama
BYLINE: JEREMY W. PETERS
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 314 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mitt Romney questioned on Friday whether President Obama "knows what he's doing" when it comes to fixing the economy.
SIOUX CITY, Iowa - Seizing on a disappointing jobs report, Mitt Romney questioned on Friday whether President Obama "knows what he's doing" when it came to fixing the economy.
"There's almost nothing the president has done in the past three and a half, four years that gives the American people confidence that he knows what he's doing when it comes to jobs and the economy," Mr. Romney told reporters as he stopped here for a campaign rally.
In Mr. Romney's first remarks since the Democratic National Convention wrapped up on Thursday night, the Republican nominee said Mr. Obama had offered little more than empty promises. The employment report released on Friday morning showed that the economy added 96,000 jobs in August, down from a revised figure of 141,000 in July and well below the 125,000 level economists had been expecting.
"What is he going to do to get this economy going?" Mr. Romney said. "And all he said last night was the same as what he said four years ago -- which, by the way, he made a lot of promises four years ago. Can you think of any of those promises that was met? I mean, he was going to create jobs. We haven't. Lower unemployment? He hasn't. Rising take-home pay? It's gone down."
His appearance in Iowa came as the Romney campaign was ramping up activity on another front. It announced on Friday a major advertising campaign in eight swing states. The commercials - 15 in all - are specifically tailored to resonate with voters in each of those states.
In Florida, for example, people will see commercials about falling real estate values and high foreclosure rates. In Colorado, where the military and defense contractors are large employers, people will hear how the president's budget cuts could cost 20,000 military jobs there.
And here in Iowa, they will hear how "excessive government regulations are crushing small businesses and family farms."
LOAD-DATE: September 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1004 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
September 7, 2012 Friday
Jobs Numbers Prompt Obama to Account for Anemic Recovery
BYLINE: HELENE COOPER and JEREMY W. PETERS
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 692 words
HIGHLIGHT: His convention speech was only hours old when President Obama, confronted by a dismal new jobs report, found himself having to use precious time on his campaign trail to account for the country's continued anemic economic recovery.
IOWA CITY - His convention speech was only hours old when President Obama, confronted by a weak new jobs report, found himself Friday having to use precious time on the campaign trail to account for the country's continued anemic economic recovery.
As he has been forced to month after month, the president responded by shifting the blame to Congressional Republicans, calling on lawmakers to pass the jobs bill he proposed last year and that has been languishing since.
"Today we learned that after losing around 800,000 jobs a month when I took office, businesses added private-sector jobs for the 30th month in a row," Mr. Obama told a campaign rally in Portsmouth, N.H. He did not mention that the actual number of new jobs reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics earlier in the morning, a figure that was lower than expected.
"But that's not good enough," Mr. Obama said. "We know it's not good enough."
The president called on Congress to commit to extending middle-class tax cuts. "If Republicans are serious about getting rid of joblessness, they can create one million new jobs if Congress passes the jobs plan I sent them," he said.
Mr. Obama is on a post-convention campaign trip through crucial swing states, starting in New Hampshire on Friday morning before heading to Iowa City and then ending in St. Petersburg, Fla. There he will begin a bus tour over the weekend through Florida, a perennial battleground.
He was joined by his full ticket: The first lady, Michelle Obama (who the president called "amazing" at the convention), Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his wife, Jill Biden.
Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, wasted no time in jumping on the jobs report Friday. On his way to a campaign stop near Sioux City, Iowa, Mr. Romney told reporters that the latest employment report was a fresh reminder that Mr. Obama's leadership has left Americans with little more than broken promises and empty hope.
"There's almost nothing the president has done in the past three and a half, four years that gives the American people confidence that he knows what he's doing when it comes to jobs and the economy," Mr. Romney said, adding that the president's speech Thursday to the Democratic National Convention contained even more promises that will go unfulfilled.
"What is he going to do to get this economy going?" Mr. Romney said. "All he said last night was the same as what he said four years ago, which by the way, he made a lot of promises four years ago. Can you think of any of those promises that was met? I mean, he was going to create jobs. We haven't. Lower unemployment? He hasn't. Rising take home pay? It's gone down."
His appearance in Iowa came as the Romney campaign was ramping up activity on another front. It announced on Friday a major advertising campaign in eight swing states. The commercials - 15 in all - are specifically tailored to resonate with voters in each of those states.
In Florida, for example, people will see commercials about falling real estate values and high foreclosure rates. In Colorado, where the military and defense contracting is a large employer, people will hear how the president's budget cuts could cost 20,000 military jobs there.
And here in Iowa, they will hear how "excessive government regulations are crushing small businesses and family farms."
The president, meanwhile, got in some licks of his own. During his speech, Mr. Obama tried out a new attack line against the Republican push for tax cuts, deriding the Republicans as running to tax cuts as the solution for every problem.
On Friday morning, as is his wont when he finds a line he likes, Mr. Obama was ready to expand. Mr. Romney and his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, Mr. Obama said, view tax cuts as a miracle cure. "Tax cuts to help you lose a few pounds! Tax cuts to help improve your love life!" Then he grinned.
An Ocean Away, but Still Shadowing His Competition
Caucus Video: Three-Way Republican Race Emerges; Obama's Bus Tour
Priorities USA Action Reports Record Monthly Donations
On Medicare, Obama Plays Offense
For Romney, a New Running Mate May Mean a New, Less Elliptical, Workout, Too
LOAD-DATE: September 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1005 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
September 7, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
GOP ticket back to campaign biz;
Romney preps for Oct. debate
BYLINE: Jackie Kucinich, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4A
LENGTH: 246 words
With the Republican and Democratic conventions in the rearview mirror and a week of debate prep under his belt, Mitt Romney will hit the trail again today as the campaign enters its final two months.
Romney is scheduled to hold events in New Hampshire and Iowa today. On Saturday, he heads to Virginia.
While Democrats celebrated here this week, Romney hunkered down in Vermont at the home of former Massachusetts lieutenant governor Kerry Healey to prepare for his Oct. 3 debate with the president.
He was joined by Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, who reprised his role as President Obama in mock debates.
Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., began the week stumping in Greenville, N.C., just four hours away from the Democratic convention. He then continued to other key swing states, including Colorado, Iowa and Ohio.
Ryan is scheduled to attend a rally in Sparks, Nev., today.
The Romney campaign is also ramping up its television ad campaign -- buying at least $4.5million worth of TV time in eight swing states after being dormant for 11 days, according to NBC News.
Both the Romney campaign and outside groups that support them have begun prioritizing where they should spent precious campaign dollars.
Romney and conservative groups that back him aren't running ads in Michigan or Pennsylvania, according to local news reports.
That could indicate Republicans don't have high hopes for those states, which have been considered key battlegrounds for most of the election season.
LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1006 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 7, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Political theater Political theater
BYLINE: Peter Marks
SECTION: Style; Pg. C01
LENGTH: 2682 words
Did you happen to notice how, in his masterly mix of reciting and extemporizing, global statesman and Yale Law School graduate Bill Clinton repeatedly inserted the language of back-porch authority into his convention speech? Phrases like, "You all got to listen to this" and "Now think about this" and "You won't be laughin' when I finish tellin' you this"?
Folks, this here was your former commander in chief, taking you by the shoulder, whether you were in the hall or not, and giving you some advice about when to hoot or holler or clap or laugh (or not). His alternation of tone - wryly down-home one minute, charmingly prosecutorial the next - revealed what a useful education in rhetoric politicians can receive when they actually have the opportunity to hone their technique over the decades, from one spotlight moment to another.
The 48-minute speech - an instant convention classic - came just in time. To borrow a phrase from the theater, the Democratic convention was having second-act problems. After the oratorical studliness of night one, when a bill filled by such bracing speakers as former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and first lady Michelle Obama turned the gathering into an exuberant rally on the subject of the nation's future, the second night was shaping up to be about as galvanizing as a zoning board hearing on height variances.
And Thursday night, with its marquee turns by Vice President Biden and President Obama, Clinton's presentation still seemed to resound the loudest - until Obama really got going.
Biden, his voice overloaded with portent, gave a fawning account of his association with Obama, which seemed to go over especially well with a misty-eyed first lady (who sat up front with Biden's wife, Jill). But the schmaltziness sounded as though the words came from an old movie - "I sat beside him as he made one gutsy decision after another," he declared - and so the endorsement lacked the consoling illusion of candor.
Obama, true to his nature, was the smoother, cooler antidote to Biden's unmodulated heat, and in repeating the mantra of auto-industry rehabilitation that has been a convention theme all week, you might say he was wrapping himself fully in the cars and stripes. But the man knows how to build a performance, and, as the speech shifted from rather dreary policy details to the theme of aspiration, the president came into his own.
"If you turn away now, if you turn away, if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn't possible, well, change will not happen!" Obama intoned. The speech did not brim with personality, the way Clinton's did, but it harnessed Obama's robust star quality.
Despite its agonizing interminability and waning relevance, a national convention still can be a star-maker: the tough-minded Susana Martinez, governor of New Mexico, made a splash in Tampa, and the dashing Castro did the same at the mike in Charlotte. But as with the GOP the week before, far too few of the rank-and-file Democratic speakers seemed as though they could outperform the dullest member of a middling high school debate team. It made me wonder more than once: Why do people with only a rudimentary grasp of how to engage a large audience go into, of all things, politics? And what is the salutary effect on young people watching for the first time - other than to encourage them to go to bed early?
As I did on three nights last week, I sat down this week to a tubeful of conventioneering, to look not so much at the political impact as the degree to which the tools of performance were being used by the parties effectively. This was not an exotic pursuit, for I learned long ago that every political reporter is in part a theater critic; the vocabulary the pundits use on a pivotal night in a campaign is direct from the Broadway manual. "Tonight, we were reintroduced to a star!" gushed the liberal commentator Ed Schultz, on MSNBC, after Michelle Obama's emotional Tuesday night stemwinder. Still, as experienced mostly on C-SPAN - the cable outlet for those who want more of the voices onstage and less of the motormouths off - a convention has more time to kill than speaking talent to fill it. (Kamala Harris, the beautiful and highly touted California attorney general, was among those granted a prime-time speaking slot who displayed a need to work a little more on her delivery.)
Maybe it's simply that formal addresses have little currency in a tweeting nation. And yet, having heard or seen what remarkable orators such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy could accomplish, we all yearn to be swept away by the power of speech. What we're exposed to more often today are halting, stumbling struggles with teleprompters just out of a television audience's vision, and irritatingly rehearsed hand gestures that come across as hackneyed stage directions: "For emphasis, press fingers of hand to thumb, and thrust forward. Now, open palms."
To reinvigorate the art of declamation, it might be time for a new competition series: "So You Think You Can Speak?"
Regardless of how much a political campaign can be reasonably expected to keep such a protracted television event compelling, the two parties were at least trying at times, even inadvertently, to do so. (The roll-call vote has become such a fait accompli the parties wisely shove it into off-hours.) Say what you will about Clint Eastwood's Albee-esque dialogue in Tampa with The Invisible Man; it made an otherwise bland aspect of the pageant unmissable. And an appearance center stage in Charlotte by Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student subjected to offensive characterizations by conservative commentators after trying to speak at a congressional hearing on contraception, provided some intriguingly offbeat casting. It helped, too, that her remarks came across as succinct and polished. "I'm here because I spoke out," she said, with a firmness that reinforced her reasonableness and sense of conviction. "And this November," she added, "each of us must speak out."
The Republicans created a more modern and appealing physical environment around their speakers, a series of 13 screens framed in cherry and mahogany, and each a distinct geometric form. The set looked like no other I've seen at a convention, and so you were encouraged in the belief that the gathering might itself be an interesting alternative. The Democrats went for an epic motif, with towering projections behind the podium of postcard American scenes and symbols. This nostalgic imagery and more traditional-looking design seemed reminders of a party in power, given the task of maintaining American might and values.
More important for the viewer at home, the hall in Charlotte, the Time Warner Cable Arena, pulsated more vibrantly than did the convention center in Tampa. The difference might have been that the Democrats simply fill the space with more delegates than the rival party. That paid off in what you might call the crowd scenes. The roars were louder in response to the speakers' imploring words. When Mark Antony asks for ears to be lent in "Julius Caesar," the drama tends to be heightened when the Forum is more densely populated.
If the wide hall amplifies exhilaration, the camera funnels warmth, when it detects it. That might be why candidates' spouses often play so well in convention appearances. Beyond the visceral affection the delegates project in those close-up reaction shots, the mates sometimes manage to reveal some genuine flavor, a magnitude of belief in the candidate that eludes speakers who don't know the nominee as well - or resort to platitudes that are repeated ad nauseam into the night. By virtue of the delight that she seemed to take in her turn at the microphone, Ann Romney communicated persuasively her faith in her partnership with Mitt. Michelle Obama added an extra measure of writerly know-how, as she drew a link between her husband's commitment to the nation, and her own commitment to him.
"I can honestly say when it comes to his character, and his convictions, and his heart, Barack Obama is still the same man I fell in love with all those years ago," she said. She wasn't beneath a bit of hagiography: describing her husband as hunched over a table at night, reading letters from ordinary citizens, seemed an allusion to another president who engaged in soul-searching epistolary contact with his constituents, Abraham Lincoln. But as Clinton would on the following night, she gave a potent rendition of what's known in musical theater as the 11 o'clock number - that crucial moment at evening's end, when the music must ignite the crowd.
marksp@washpost.com
Did you happen to notice how, in his masterly mix of reciting and extemporizing, global statesman and Yale Law School graduate Bill Clinton repeatedly inserted the language of back-porch authority into his convention speech? Phrases like, "You all got to listen to this" and "Now think about this" and "You won't be laughin' when I finish tellin' you this"?
Folks, this here was your former commander in chief, taking you by the shoulder, whether you were in the hall or not, and giving you some advice about when to hoot or holler or clap or laugh (or not). His alternation of tone - wryly down-home one minute, charmingly prosecutorial the next - revealed what a useful education in rhetoric politicians can receive, when they actually have the opportunity to hone their technique over the decades, from one spotlight moment to another.
The 48-minute speech - an instant convention classic - came just in time. To borrow a phrase from the theater, the Democratic convention was having second-act problems. After the oratorical studliness of night one, when a bill filled by such bracing speakers as former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and first lady Michelle Obama turned the gathering into an exuberant rally on the subject of the nation's future, the second night was shaping up to be as about as galvanizing as a zoning board hearing on height variances.
Despite its agonizing interminability and waning relevance, a national convention still can be a star-maker: the tough-minded Susana Martinez, governor of New Mexico, made a splash in Tampa, and the dashing Castro did the same at the mike in Charlotte. But as with the GOP the week before, far too few of the rank-and-file Democratic speakers seemed as though they could outperform the dullest member of a middling high school debate team. It made me wonder more than once: Why do people with only a rudimentary grasp of how to engage a large audience go into, of all things, politics? And what is the salutary effect on young people watching for the first time - other than to encourage them to go to bed early?
As I did on three nights last week, I sat down this week to a tubeful of conventioneering, to look not so much at the political impact as the degree to which the tools of performance were being used by the parties effectively. This was not an exotic pursuit, for I learned long ago that every political reporter is in part a theater critic; the vocabulary the pundits use on a pivotal night in a campaign is direct from the Broadway manual. "Tonight, we were reintroduced to a star!" gushed the liberal commentator Ed Schultz, on MSNBC, after Michelle Obama's emotional Tuesday night stemwinder. Still, as experienced mostly on C-SPAN - the cable outlet for those who want more of the voices onstage and less of the motormouths off - a convention has more time to kill than speaking talent to fill it. (Kamala Harris, the beautiful and highly touted California attorney general, was among those granted a prime-time speaking slot who displayed a need to work a little more on her delivery.)
Maybe it's simply that formal addresses have little currency in a tweeting nation. And yet, having heard or seen what remarkable orators such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy could accomplish, we all yearn to be swept away by the power of speech. What we're exposed to more often today are halting, stumbling struggles with teleprompters just out of a television audience's vision, and irritatingly rehearsed hand gestures that come across as hackneyed stage directions: "For emphasis, press fingers of hand to thumb, and thrust forward. Now, open palms."
To reinvigorate the art of declamation, it might be time for a new competition series: "So You Think You Can Speak?"
Regardless of how much a political campaign can be reasonably expected to keep such a protracted television event compelling, the two parties were at least trying at times, even inadvertently, to do so. (The roll-call vote has become such a fait accompli the parties wisely shove it into off-hours.) Say what you will about Clint Eastwood's Albee-esque dialogue in Tampa with The Invisible Man; it made an otherwise bland aspect of the pageant unmissable. And an appearance center stage in Charlotte by Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student subjected to offensive characterizations by conservative commentators after trying to speak at a congressional hearing on contraception, provided some intriguingly offbeat casting. It helped, too, that her remarks came across as succinct and polished. "I'm here because I spoke out," she said, with a firmness that reinforced her reasonableness and sense of conviction. "And this November," she added, "each of us must speak out."
The Republicans created a more modern and appealing physical environment around their speakers, a series of 13 screens framed in cherry and mahogany, and each a distinct geometric form. The set looked like no other I've seen at a convention, and so you were encouraged in the belief that the gathering might itself be an interesting alternative. The Democrats went for an epic motif, with towering projections behind the podium of postcard American scenes and symbols. This nostalgic imagery and more traditional-looking design seemed reminders of a party in power, given the task of maintaining American might and values.
More importantly for the viewer at home, the hall in Charlotte, the Time Warner Cable Arena, pulsated more vibrantly than did the convention center in Tampa. The difference might have been that the Democrats simply fill the space with more delegates than the rival party. That paid off in what you might call the crowd scenes. The roars were louder in response to the speakers' imploring words. When Mark Antony asks for ears to be loaned in "Julius Caesar," the drama tends to be heightened when the Forum is more densely populated.
If the wide hall amplifies exhilaration, the camera funnels warmth, when it detects it. That might be why candidates' spouses often play so well in convention appearances. Beyond the visceral affection the delegates project in those close-up reaction shots, the mates sometimes manage to reveal some genuine flavor, a magnitude of belief in the candidate that eludes speakers who don't know the nominee as well - or resort to platitudes that are repeated ad nauseam into the night. By virtue of the delight that she seemed to take in her turn at the microphone, Ann Romney communicated persuasively her faith in her partnership with Mitt. Michelle Obama added an extra measure of writerly know-how, as she drew a link between her husband's commitment to the nation, and her own commitment to him.
"I can honestly say when it comes to his character, and his convictions, and his heart, Barack Obama is still the same man I fell in love with all those years ago," she said. She wasn't beneath a bit of hagiography: describing her husband as hunched over a table at night, reading letters from ordinary citizens, seemed an allusion to another president who engaged in soul-searching epistolary contact with his constituents, Abraham Lincoln. But as Clinton would on the following night, she gave a potent rendition of what's known in musical theater as the 11 o'clock number - that crucial moment at evening's end, when the music must ignite the crowd.
marksp@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1007 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
September 7, 2012 Friday 12:39 PM EST
Romney launches ads in eight swing states saying Americans are not better off;
Republican nominee launches new swing state ads.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 256 words
A day after President Obama officially accepted the Democratic nomination for reelection with a prime-time address in Charlotte, Mitt Romney released 15 television ads in eight swing states, each of which argues that Americans are not better off today then they were when Obama took office.
Each of the ads begins with a clip from Romney's convention speech, which he delivered in Tampa last week.
"This president can ask us to be patient," Romney said. "This president can tell us it was someone else's fault. But this president cannot tell us that you are better off today than when he took office."
The ads are running in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
In every spot, the first third is the same. The last 20 seconds, however, vary from ad to ad, as each is tailored to address a specific issue, including defense spending, manufacturing, energy and government regulation.
"Here in Virginia, we are not better off under President Obama," says one of the spots. "His defense cuts threaten over 130,000 jobs, lowering home values, putting families at risk. The Romney plan? Tax cuts for middle class families."
"Here in Florida, we are not better off under President Obama. Home values collapsed; home construction jobs lost; high rate of foreclosure," says another spot. "Romney's plan? Provide alternatives to foreclosure. End the mortgage lending freeze. Create over 700,000 new jobs for Florida."
In all states except New Hampshire and Nevada, more than one version of the ad is running.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1008 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
September 7, 2012 Friday 12:33 AM EST
Romney not planning on watching Obama's convention speech;
The Republican presidential nominee says he is not planning to tune in Thursday night.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 564 words
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Making the case for a second term: A recent history
Analyzing President Obama as speaker
Democratic National Convention final day: 5 speakers to watch
Obamas challenge: Win over economic doubters
Bill Clintons speech in 1 word cloud
Is Bill Clinton one of the best presidents in history?
Election Day in Massachusetts: Four things to watch
Bill Clinton: The smiling assassin
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* A new ad from Mitt Romney seeks to play Bill Clinton againstPresidentObama bypointingto comments Clinton made during the 2008 Democratic primary casting doubt on Obama's contention that heconsistentlyopposed the Iraq War. "As the economy gets worse, Barack Obama calls on Bill Clinton to help his failing campaign. But what did Bill Clinton sayaboutBarack Obama in 2008?" the narrator of the ad asks.
* Ratings are in for Wednesday night: According to Nielsen, the opening game of the NFL season between the Dallas Cowboys and New York Giants Wednesday nightaveraged about 23 million viewersin the 10:30-11:30 p.m. hour. During the same hour, about 22.8 million viewers tuned in for the Democratic National Convention (Clinton's speech took place during this time) on commercial networks. Taking Current TV and PBS into account, Clinton's speech comes out on top.
* On a conference call, Obama reached out to supporters who are now unable to attend his convention speech because it was moved to a smaller, indoor venue amid weather concerns.We cant let a little thunder and lightning get us down,Obama said. Were going to have to roll with it.
* The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is up with a new contrast TV ad hitting Rep. Rick Berg (R-N.D.) for voting for Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan (that would revamp Medicare as avouchersystem for those currently under 55) and arguing that Democratic nominee Heidi Heitkamp "will protect Medicare."
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Romney doesn't plan on tuning in for Obama'sconvention speech tonight, saying[If] I heard, or from the excerpts that are put out, I hear that the president is going to report on the promises he made and how he has performed in those promises, Id love to watch it. But if its another series of new promises that hes not going to keep, I have no interest in seeing him because I saw the promises last time."
* Clinton ishitting the campaign trail for Obama next weekin Ohio and Florida.
* The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is launching eight new independent expenditure ads. Six of the ads target Republican-held seats, one goes after Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) in his merged district member-versus-member race against Rep. Betty Sutton (D), and one targets Republican nominee Jason Plummer in Illinois's 12th District, where Rep. Jerry Costello (D) is retiring.
* According to a strategist tracking ad buys, the Government Integrity Fund, an outsidegroupaimingto boost Republican nominee Josh Mandel against Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), is up with a current ad buy valued atabout$1.4 million.
*DelawareAttorney General Beau Biden will deliver the nominating speech for hisfather, VicePresidentBiden, on Thursday night.
THE FIX MIX:
Mad music.
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1009 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 7, 2012 Friday
Met 2 Edition
Political theater
BYLINE: Peter Marks
SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C01
LENGTH: 2675 words
Did you happen to notice how, in his masterly mix of reciting and extemporizing, global statesman and Yale Law School graduate Bill Clinton repeatedly inserted the language of back-porch authority into his convention speech? Phrases like, "You all got to listen to this" and "Now think about this" and "You won't be laughin' when I finish tellin' you this"?
Folks, this here was your former commander in chief, taking you by the shoulder, whether you were in the hall or not, and giving you some advice about when to hoot or holler or clap or laugh (or not). His alternation of tone - wryly down-home one minute, charmingly prosecutorial the next - revealed what a useful education in rhetoric politicians can receive when they actually have the opportunity to hone their technique over the decades, from one spotlight moment to another.
The 48-minute speech - an instant convention classic - came just in time. To borrow a phrase from the theater, the Democratic convention was having second-act problems. After the oratorical studliness of night one, when a bill filled by such bracing speakers as former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and first lady Michelle Obama turned the gathering into an exuberant rally on the subject of the nation's future, the second night was shaping up to be about as galvanizing as a zoning board hearing on height variances.
And Thursday night, with its marquee turns by Vice President Biden and President Obama, Clinton's presentation still seemed to resound the loudest - until Obama really got going.
Biden, his voice overloaded with portent, gave a fawning account of his association with Obama, which seemed to go over especially well with a misty-eyed first lady (who sat up front with Biden's wife, Jill). But the schmaltziness sounded as though the words came from an old movie - "I sat beside him as he made one gutsy decision after another," he declared - and so the endorsement lacked the consoling illusion of candor.
Obama, true to his nature, was the smoother, cooler antidote to Biden's unmodulated heat, and in repeating the mantra of auto-industry rehabilitation that has been a convention theme all week, you might say he was wrapping himself fully in the cars and stripes. But the man knows how to build a performance, and, as the speech shifted from rather dreary policy details to the theme of aspiration, the president came into his own.
"If you turn away now, if you turn away, if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn't possible, well, change will not happen!" Obama intoned. The speech did not brim with personality, the way Clinton's did, but it harnessed Obama's robust star quality.
Despite its agonizing interminability and waning relevance, a national convention still can be a star-maker: the tough-minded Susana Martinez, governor of New Mexico, made a splash in Tampa, and the dashing Castro did the same at the mike in Charlotte. But as with the GOP the week before, far too few of the rank-and-file Democratic speakers seemed as though they could outperform the dullest member of a middling high school debate team. It made me wonder more than once: Why do people with only a rudimentary grasp of how to engage a large audience go into, of all things, politics? And what is the salutary effect on young people watching for the first time - other than to encourage them to go to bed early?
As I did on three nights last week, I sat down this week to a tubeful of conventioneering, to look not so much at the political impact as the degree to which the tools of performance were being used by the parties effectively. This was not an exotic pursuit, for I learned long ago that every political reporter is in part a theater critic; the vocabulary the pundits use on a pivotal night in a campaign is direct from the Broadway manual. "Tonight, we were reintroduced to a star!" gushed the liberal commentator Ed Schultz, on MSNBC, after Michelle Obama's emotional Tuesday night stemwinder.
Still, as experienced mostly on C-SPAN - the cable outlet for those who want more of the voices onstage and less of the motormouths off - a convention has more time to kill than speaking talent to fill it. (Kamala Harris, the beautiful and highly touted California attorney general, was among those granted a prime-time speaking slot who displayed a need to work a little more on her delivery.)
Maybe it's simply that formal addresses have little currency in a tweeting nation. And yet, having heard or seen what remarkable orators such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy could accomplish, we all yearn to be swept away by the power of speech. What we're exposed to more often today are halting, stumbling struggles with teleprompters just out of a television audience's vision, and irritatingly rehearsed hand gestures that come across as hackneyed stage directions: "For emphasis, press fingers of hand to thumb, and thrust forward. Now, open palms."
To reinvigorate the art of declamation, it might be time for a new competition series: "So You Think You Can Speak?"
Regardless of how much a political campaign can be reasonably expected to keep such a protracted television event compelling, the two parties were at least trying at times, even inadvertently, to do so. (The roll-call vote has become such a fait accompli the parties wisely shove it into off-hours.) Say what you will about Clint Eastwood's Albee-esque dialogue in Tampa with The Invisible Man; it made an otherwise bland aspect of the pageant unmissable. And an appearance center stage in Charlotte by Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student subjected to offensive characterizations by conservative commentators after trying to speak at a congressional hearing on contraception, provided some intriguingly offbeat casting. It helped, too, that her remarks came across as succinct and polished. "I'm here because I spoke out," she said, with a firmness that reinforced her reasonableness and sense of conviction. "And this November," she added, "each of us must speak out."
The Republicans created a more modern and appealing physical environment around their speakers, a series of 13 screens framed in cherry and mahogany, and each a distinct geometric form. The set looked like no other I've seen at a convention, and so you were encouraged in the belief that the gathering might itself be an interesting alternative. The Democrats went for an epic motif, with towering projections behind the podium of postcard American scenes and symbols. This nostalgic imagery and more traditional-looking design seemed reminders of a party in power, given the task of maintaining American might and values.
More important for the viewer at home, the hall in Charlotte, the Time Warner Cable Arena, pulsated more vibrantly than did the convention center in Tampa. The difference might have been that the Democrats simply fill the space with more delegates than the rival party. That paid off in what you might call the crowd scenes. The roars were louder in response to the speakers' imploring words. When Mark Antony asks for ears to be lent in "Julius Caesar," the drama tends to be heightened when the Forum is more densely populated.
If the wide hall amplifies exhilaration, the camera funnels warmth, when it detects it. That might be why candidates' spouses often play so well in convention appearances. Beyond the visceral affection the delegates project in those close-up reaction shots, the mates sometimes manage to reveal some genuine flavor, a magnitude of belief in the candidate that eludes speakers who don't know the nominee as well - or resort to platitudes that are repeated ad nauseam into the night. By virtue of the delight that she seemed to take in her turn at the microphone, Ann Romney communicated persuasively her faith in her partnership with Mitt. Michelle Obama added an extra measure of writerly know-how, as she drew a link between her husband's commitment to the nation, and her own commitment to him.
"I can honestly say when it comes to his character, and his convictions, and his heart, Barack Obama is still the same man I fell in love with all those years ago," she said. She wasn't beneath a bit of hagiography: describing her husband as hunched over a table at night, reading letters from ordinary citizens, seemed an allusion to another president who engaged in soul-searching epistolary contact with his constituents, Abraham Lincoln. But as Clinton would on the following night, she gave a potent rendition of what's known in musical theater as the 11 o'clock number - that crucial moment at evening's end, when the music must ignite the crowd.
marksp@washpost.com
Did you happen to notice how, in his masterly mix of reciting and extemporizing, global statesman and Yale Law School graduate Bill Clinton repeatedly inserted the language of back-porch authority into his convention speech? Phrases like, "You all got to listen to this" and "Now think about this" and "You won't be laughin' when I finish tellin' you this"?
Folks, this here was your former commander in chief, taking you by the shoulder, whether you were in the hall or not, and giving you some advice about when to hoot or holler or clap or laugh (or not). His alternation of tone - wryly down-home one minute, charmingly prosecutorial the next - revealed what a useful education in rhetoric politicians can receive, when they actually have the opportunity to hone their technique over the decades, from one spotlight moment to another.
The 48-minute speech - an instant convention classic - came just in time. To borrow a phrase from the theater, the Democratic convention was having second-act problems. After the oratorical studliness of night one, when a bill filled by such bracing speakers as former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and first lady Michelle Obama turned the gathering into an exuberant rally on the subject of the nation's future, the second night was shaping up to be as about as galvanizing as a zoning board hearing on height variances.
Despite its agonizing interminability and waning relevance, a national convention still can be a star-maker: the tough-minded Susana Martinez, governor of New Mexico, made a splash in Tampa, and the dashing Castro did the same at the mike in Charlotte. But as with the GOP the week before, far too few of the rank-and-file Democratic speakers seemed as though they could outperform the dullest member of a middling high school debate team. It made me wonder more than once: Why do people with only a rudimentary grasp of how to engage a large audience go into, of all things, politics? And what is the salutary effect on young people watching for the first time - other than to encourage them to go to bed early?
As I did on three nights last week, I sat down this week to a tubeful of conventioneering, to look not so much at the political impact as the degree to which the tools of performance were being used by the parties effectively. This was not an exotic pursuit, for I learned long ago that every political reporter is in part a theater critic; the vocabulary the pundits use on a pivotal night in a campaign is direct from the Broadway manual. "Tonight, we were reintroduced to a star!" gushed the liberal commentator Ed Schultz, on MSNBC, after Michelle Obama's emotional Tuesday night stemwinder.
Still, as experienced mostly on C-SPAN - the cable outlet for those who want more of the voices onstage and less of the motormouths off - a convention has more time to kill than speaking talent to fill it. (Kamala Harris, the beautiful and highly touted California attorney general, was among those granted a prime-time speaking slot who displayed a need to work a little more on her delivery.)
Maybe it's simply that formal addresses have little currency in a tweeting nation. And yet, having heard or seen what remarkable orators such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy could accomplish, we all yearn to be swept away by the power of speech. What we're exposed to more often today are halting, stumbling struggles with teleprompters just out of a television audience's vision, and irritatingly rehearsed hand gestures that come across as hackneyed stage directions: "For emphasis, press fingers of hand to thumb, and thrust forward. Now, open palms."
To reinvigorate the art of declamation, it might be time for a new competition series: "So You Think You Can Speak?"
Regardless of how much a political campaign can be reasonably expected to keep such a protracted television event compelling, the two parties were at least trying at times, even inadvertently, to do so. (The roll-call vote has become such a fait accompli the parties wisely shove it into off-hours.) Say what you will about Clint Eastwood's Albee-esque dialogue in Tampa with The Invisible Man; it made an otherwise bland aspect of the pageant unmissable. And an appearance center stage in Charlotte by Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student subjected to offensive characterizations by conservative commentators after trying to speak at a congressional hearing on contraception, provided some intriguingly offbeat casting. It helped, too, that her remarks came across as succinct and polished. "I'm here because I spoke out," she said, with a firmness that reinforced her reasonableness and sense of conviction. "And this November," she added, "each of us must speak out."
The Republicans created a more modern and appealing physical environment around their speakers, a series of 13 screens framed in cherry and mahogany, and each a distinct geometric form. The set looked like no other I've seen at a convention, and so you were encouraged in the belief that the gathering might itself be an interesting alternative. The Democrats went for an epic motif, with towering projections behind the podium of postcard American scenes and symbols. This nostalgic imagery and more traditional-looking design seemed reminders of a party in power, given the task of maintaining American might and values.
More importantly for the viewer at home, the hall in Charlotte, the Time Warner Cable Arena, pulsated more vibrantly than did the convention center in Tampa. The difference might have been that the Democrats simply fill the space with more delegates than the rival party. That paid off in what you might call the crowd scenes. The roars were louder in response to the speakers' imploring words. When Mark Antony asks for ears to be loaned in "Julius Caesar," the drama tends to be heightened when the Forum is more densely populated.
If the wide hall amplifies exhilaration, the camera funnels warmth, when it detects it. That might be why candidates' spouses often play so well in convention appearances. Beyond the visceral affection the delegates project in those close-up reaction shots, the mates sometimes manage to reveal some genuine flavor, a magnitude of belief in the candidate that eludes speakers who don't know the nominee as well - or resort to platitudes that are repeated ad nauseam into the night. By virtue of the delight that she seemed to take in her turn at the microphone, Ann Romney communicated persuasively her faith in her partnership with Mitt. Michelle Obama added an extra measure of writerly know-how, as she drew a link between her husband's commitment to the nation, and her own commitment to him.
"I can honestly say when it comes to his character, and his convictions, and his heart, Barack Obama is still the same man I fell in love with all those years ago," she said. She wasn't beneath a bit of hagiography: describing her husband as hunched over a table at night, reading letters from ordinary citizens, seemed an allusion to another president who engaged in soul-searching epistolary contact with his constituents, Abraham Lincoln. But as Clinton would on the following night, she gave a potent rendition of what's known in musical theater as the 11 o'clock number - that crucial moment at evening's end, when the music must ignite the crowd.
marksp@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1010 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
September 6, 2012 Thursday
Clinton Was Not Always an Obama Fan, Romney Ad Recalls
BYLINE: SARAH WHEATON
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 273 words
HIGHLIGHT: The day after Bill Clinton forcefully made the case for the president's re-election, a new Romney ad notes Mr. Clinton's reaction to Barack Obama was once "Give me a break."
Bill Clinton proved Wednesday night to be one of President Obama's most forceful and substantive surrogates, but he has hardly been the most consistent. In fact, in a new ad, Mitt Romney's campaign is reminding voters that Mr. Clinton was once a sharp critic of Mr. Obama, in 2008.
"Give me a break," Mr. Clinton said in New Hampshire on the eve of that state's primary more than four years ago, when Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mr. Obama were in a tight race for the Democratic nomination. "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," he said of Mr. Obama's position on the Iraq war.
Mr. Clinton's words drew immediate criticism from Democrats, especially African-Americans.
The ad notes that Mr. Clinton is sounding a different tune today, though it casts him as "a good soldier, helping his party's president" after being called upon to support a "failing campaign."
The narrator then recites recent unemployment figures and says that the middle class is falling "further behind" before the "Give me a break" clip rolls a second time.
The Romney camp has spoken well of Mr. Clinton's presidency. Stumping in Iowa on Wednesday, Representative Paul D. Ryan, the vice-presidential nominee, noted Mr. Clinton's economic successes and said that Mr. Romney would save the welfare reforms that the 42nd president enacted.
The Romney campaign declined to provide any details about where the ad was running, its standard practice, and the Obama campaign did not offer an immediate response. But after Mr. Clinton's 48-minute convention speech, one thing is clearly better off than it was four years ago: the Clinton-Obama relationship.
LOAD-DATE: September 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1011 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
She the People
September 6, 2012 Thursday 9:51 PM EST
'Breaking up' with Barack Obama;
GOP ad shows why Republicans are behind with women voters.
BYLINE: Melinda Henneberger
LENGTH: 280 words
A new GOP ad, called "The Breakup,'' may be the perfect illustration of why women voters favor President Obama over Mitt Romney.
In it, a woman (played by Bettina Inclan, the RNC's director of Hispanic outreach) complains to her unseen boyfriend, who is seated across the table in a fancy restaurant.
"Listen, this just isn't working,'' she whines. "It's been four years. You've changed: Your spending is out of control, you're constantly on the golf course, and you're always out with Hollywood celebrities. You think I didn't see you with Sarah Jessica Parker and George Clooney?'' she asks, brushing her hair off her face. "Your jobs council says you haven't even showed up in six months."
"You're just not the person I thought you were. It's not me; it's you,'' she says, rising and revealing her dining partner to be...a cardboard cutout of the president. "I think we should just be friends."
Presenting women voters as complainers is a strategy, but not a winning one.
Suggesting that what women are angling for is less golf and maybe an emerald-cut diamond and some roses is telling, but not in a good way.
And the racial subtext of the ad - the woman is Hispanic, unlike the presidential spouse who wowed the crowd here on Tuesday - does have echoes of the horrendous "Call me" ad used against Tennessee's former Rep. Harold Ford in his 2006 senatorial campaign.
Democrats should hope every woman in America sees this thing and watches our stand-in throw her linen napkin down, presumably leaving Obama to pick up the bill.
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political writer and anchors the paper's 'She the People' blog. Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1012 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 6, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
If Democrats face enthusiasm gap, it wasn't evident on opening night If Democrats face enthusiasm gap, it wasn't evident on opening night
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A section; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 2080 words
CHARLOTTE - Democrats may face an enthusiasm gap in November, hope and change having lost much of their glow. But you wouldn't know it from the opening night of the party's convention.
Democrats put on a rousing show Tuesday, a program of powerful political oratory and optics capped by first lady Michelle Obama's address. The evening's speakers built on one another to deliver a consistent message, and the arena was packed with delegates eager to express support for an embattled President Obama.
Democrats need a good convention. Obama's political vulnerabilities are clear and rival Mitt Romney's opportunities obvious. Charlotte can't be a reenactment of Denver in 2008. But anything that conveys a loss of hope, disappointment in the president or a slackening of enthusiasm will be magnified manyfold by the media assembled here this week.
The contest remains a statistical tie nationally. Romney didn't get a noticeable boost in the polls from his convention. But he did use his gathering to improve his image, even if that was primarily among Republicans. If Obama can do better than that, if he can move the polls a few points with his convention, he will begin the final phase of the race in better shape than many expected.
It's far too soon to make judgments about the overall impact of this convention, but the contrast with the beginning of the Republican gathering in Tampa last week was palpable. That's why Tuesday's start was important.
In Tampa, the opening night was marked by a lack of energy on the floor. The aisles in the arena were wide open. Delegates talked among themselves throughout almost all the speeches, other than those by Ann Romney and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
One measure: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker received hearty applause when he was introduced, reflecting his widespread popularity in the party. But he rarely roused the crowd once he began speaking and exited the stage to much milder adulation.
If the enthusiasm in Tampa was mostly anti-Obama rather than pro-Romney, it was different in Charlotte. On Tuesday, the floor was alive with energy. People crowded into every space available. The Obama convention team had distributed placards and signs to augment the messages from different speakers, and they were used to good effect when both Michelle Obama and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro delivered their prime-time addresses.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, never given to understatement, offered a predictably bullish assessment of opening night. "We had more energy in one night than [Republicans] had in four," he said at a Wednesday breakfast held by The Washington Post and Bloomberg News.
Discounting for partisan cheerleading (and the fact that Republicans had only three nights in Tampa because of a hurricane threat), Emanuel managed to sum up something that was unmistakable to anyone roaming the floor at the Time Warner Cable Arena on Tuesday night.
But there was much more than optics and good signage that helped Democrats begin a convention that is being conducted in the shadow of what took place four years ago in Denver.
The program included a video tribute to the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) that morphed into an anti-Romney ad, featuring footage from a Kennedy-Romney debate in 1994 when Kennedy demolished his challenger and put his reelection campaign on a path to victory.
Most speakers in Tampa seemed hesitant to criticize Obama harshly. In Charlotte, the speakers on the undercard roused the delegates with sharp attacks on Romney.
Former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, a victim of the Republican tsunami two years into Obama's presidency, was full-throated in his assault. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick had the audience cheering as he went after Romney's record as governor there.
Other speakers dealt with other business. Emanuel, Obama's first White House chief of staff, defended the administration's early record. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley engaged delegates with a series of "forward" and "back" lines that drove one of the main themes of contrast that the president's campaign has worked on all summer.
Those speeches reflected different parts of an overall message and served as a prelude to the evening's two major speakers. Castro's keynote address delivered, both in content and execution. He made his case against Romney more directly and effectively than Christie made his against Obama a week earlier. He defended Obama more directly and effectively than Christie defended Romney.
He used humor and timing to skewer the Republican nominee. But he also used direct language to go after Romney, GOP vice presidential running mate Paul Ryan and their fellow Republicans. "The Romney-Ryan budget doesn't just cut public education, cut Medicare, cut transportation and cut job training," he said. "It doesn't just pummel the middle class - it dismantles it. It dismantles what generations before have built to ensure that everybody can enter and stay in the middle class."
Michelle Obama - who spoke as a first lady, a wife and a mother - gave a passionately personal speech about her husband, their family and a set of values that are at the heart of the contrast Democrats want to draw with Republicans.
She never mentioned Romney but didn't have to, because she was hardly subtle in trying to convey that her husband is more closely connected to the lives of ordinary people than the GOP nominee is. "Barack knows the American dream because he's lived it," she said, "and he wants everyone in this country to have that same opportunity."
The president's speech on Thursday night will determine how successful the Democratic convention turns out to be. And with the electorate as settled as it is in its division over the choice in November, it's more likely than not that the presidential race in two weeks will look about the way it does now. But Democrats' opening night program will be remembered.
balzd@washpost.com
For more Dan Balz columns, go to postpolitics.com.
CHARLOTTE - Democrats may face an enthusiasm gap in November, hope and change having lost much of their glow. But you wouldn't know it from the opening night of the party's convention.
Democrats put on a rousing show Tuesday, a program of powerful political oratory and optics, capped by first lady Michelle Obama's address. The evening's speakers built on one another to deliver a consistent message, and the arena was packed with delegates eager to express support for an embattled President Obama.
Democrats need a good convention. Obama's political vulnerabilities are clear and rival Mitt Romney's opportunities obvious. Charlotte can't be a reenactment of Denver in 2008. But anything that conveys the loss of hope, disappointment in the president or a slackening of enthusiasm will be magnified manyfold by the media assembled here this week.
The contest remains a statistical tie nationally. Romney didn't get a noticeable boost in the polls from his convention. But he did use his gathering to improve his image, even if that was primarily among Republicans. If Obama can do better than that, if he can move the polls a few points with his convention, he will begin the final phase of the race in better shape than many expected.
It's far too soon to make judgments about the overall impact of this convention, but the contrast with the beginning of the Republican gathering in Tampa last week was palpable. That's why Tuesday's start was important.
In Tampa, the opening night was marked by a lack of energy on the floor. The aisles in the arena were wide open. Delegates talked among themselves throughout almost all the speeches, other than those by Ann Romney and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
One measure: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker received hearty applause when he was introduced, reflecting his widespread popularity in the party. But he rarely roused the crowd once he began speaking and exited the stage to much milder adulation.
If the enthusiasm in Tampa was mostly anti-Obama rather than pro-Romney, it was different in Charlotte. On Tuesday, the floor was alive with energy. People crowded into every space available. The Obama convention team had distributed placards and signs to augment the messages from different speakers, and they were used to good effect when both Michelle Obama and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro delivered their prime-time addresses.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, never given to understatement, offered a predictably bullish assessment of opening night. "We had more energy in one night than [Republicans] had in four," he said at a Wednesday breakfast held by The Washington Post and Bloomberg News.
Discounting for partisan cheerleading (and the fact that Republicans had only three nights in Tampa because of a hurricane threat), Emanuel managed to sum up something that was unmistakable for anyone roaming the floor at the Time Warner Cable Arena on Tuesday night.
But there was much more than optics and good signage that helped Democrats begin a convention that is being conducted in the shadow of what took place four years ago in Denver.
The program included a video tribute to the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) that morphed into an anti-Romney ad, featuring footage from a Kennedy-Romney debate in 1994 when Kennedy demolished his challenger and put his reelection campaign on a path to victory.
Most speakers in Tampa seemed hesitant to criticize Obama harshly. In Charlotte, the speakers on the undercard roused the delegates with sharp attacks on Romney.
Former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, a victim of the Republican tsunami two years into Obama's presidency, was full-throated in his assault. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick had the audience cheering as he went after Romney's record as governor there.
Other speakers dealt with other business. Emanuel, Obama's first White House chief of staff, defended the administration's early record. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley engaged delegates with a series of "forward" and "back" lines that drove one of the main themes of contrast that the president's campaign has worked on all summer.
Those speeches reflected different parts of an overall message, and served as a prelude to the evening's two major speakers. Castro's keynote address delivered, both in content and execution. He made his case against Romney more directly and effectively than Christie made his against Obama a week earlier. He defended Obama more directly and effectively than Christie defended Romney.
He used humor and timing to skewer the Republican nominee. But he also used direct language to go after Romney, GOP vice presidential running mate Paul Ryan and their fellow Republicans. "The Romney-Ryan budget doesn't just cut public education, cut Medicare, cut transportation and cut job training," he said. "It doesn't just pummel the middle class - it dismantles it. It dismantles what generations before have built to ensure that everybody can enter and stay in the middle class."
Michelle Obama - who spoke as a first lady, a wife and a mother - gave a passionately personal speech about her husband, their family and a set of values that are at the heart of the contrast Democrats want to draw with Republicans.
She never mentioned Romney but didn't have to, because she was hardly subtle in trying to convey that her husband is more closely connected to the lives of ordinary people than the GOP nominee is. "Barack knows the American dream because he's lived it," she said, "and he wants everyone in this country to have that same opportunity."
The president's speech on Thursday night will determine how successful the Democratic convention turns out to be. And with the electorate as settled as it is in its division over the choice in November, it's more likely than not that the presidential race in two weeks will look about the way it does now. But Democrats' opening night program will be remembered.
balzd@washpost.com
For more Dan Balz columns, go to postpolitics.com.
Name Blurb Flag true Variable Size Panel Image Panel Image Background Image
LOAD-DATE: September 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1013 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 6, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Clinton takes spotlight - for a night Clinton takes spotlight - for a night
BYLINE: Dana Milbank
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 1657 words
CHARLOTTE -
Moments before Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic Party's convention, word bubbled through the Time Warner Cable Arena that President Obama would join him on the podium after his speech.
This made official what was already implicit: The sitting president had come to bask in the former president's glow. Obama will accept the Democrats' presidential nomination on Thursday night, but on Wednesday night, he was in Clinton's house.
Obama was backstage while the audience clapped along to the old Clinton theme song, Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop." The 20,000 jamming the hall watched footage of Clinton's past triumphs - "longest economic expansion in history" - and then erupted in cheers as Clinton strolled slowly onto the stage, giving a thumbs-up to the cameras.
His speech - a meandering Clintonian mix of folksiness and savage partisanship - was illuminated by the sparkle of thousands of camera flashes and punctuated with regular shouts of "We love you, Bill!" Inevitably, the subject matter frequently returned to the speaker's favorite topic: Bill Clinton.
"Thankfully, by 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States," he reminded the delegates.
"People ask me all the time how we delivered four surplus budgets," he confided, adding: "Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office, and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left."
The 42nd president further reminded the delegates that "I was just a country boy from Arkansas," and that "I love our country so much." There was also that "welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work."
But what about Obama? "President Obama appointed several members of his Cabinet even though they supported Hillary in the primary. Heck, he even appointed Hillary."
Obama and his advisers knew that this was exactly what was going to happen. But they calculated that it was worth risking the perception that Obama was trying to ride a former president's coattails to reelection. In the end, that gamble will probably prove to be a good one, because Clinton, a far more popular figure than Obama, bestowed his blessing on the president unambiguously, in some ways making the case for Obama's reelection more cogently than Obama has made it.
"No president - not me, not any of my predecessors, no one - could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years," Clinton told the crowd. "But he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity, and if you will renew the president's contract, you will feel it. You will feel it."
Clinton, with his far better track record, was apologizing for Obama, and vouching for him. "Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election," he said, departing from the words on his teleprompter. "I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it."
That's worth a lot to Obama, who was viewed favorably by just 47 percent in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. Clinton, by contrast, is at 69 percent in a new USA Today/Gallup poll. The Republican ticket, recognizing that disparity, tried to drive a wedge between the two men. "My guess is we'll get a great rendition of how good things were in the 1990s," Paul Ryan said Wednesday morning. The GOP vice presidential nominee was right about that. But in elevating Clinton in their rhetoric and trying to paint him as a moderate who is out of step with Obama, the Republicans invited the fierce attacks Clinton delivered: criticizing Mitt Romney for being loose with the facts, chastising congressional Republicans for their blind partisanship and mocking Ryan for his hypocrisy on Medicare. "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did," he said.
As is typical of Clinton, the speech wandered widely even when he wasn't ad-libbing ("Y'all watch their convention?"), and it became something of a policy laundry list that went overtime by nearly half an hour. But he gave Obama what he wanted: a strong personal endorsement.
"I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States," Clinton said. "And I proudly nominate him to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party."
As promised, Obama strode onto the stage after the speech, and the two leaders embraced in a bear hug. Obama, his hand on Clinton's shoulder, then tried to lead his Democratic predecessor off the stage - but Clinton kept returning to the crowd for more hugs and handshakes. Finally, Obama decided to wait backstage for a few moments until Clinton finished enjoying his night.
danamilbank@washpost.com
For more Washington Sketch columns, and political videos, visit washingtonpost.com/milbank.
CHARLOTTE
Chelsea Clinton, in her role as an NBC News correspondent, was moderating a panel on education Wednesday afternoon at the Democratic National Convention when she decided to personalize the issue with a rare journalistic technique - invoking her presidential dad. Because of teacher certification rules, she said, "my father wouldn't be allowed to teach civics or history."
"He'd be very engaging," one of the others on the panel contributed.
"One of the best teachers I ever had," Clinton replied with a broad smile.
This news bulletin from correspondent Clinton came at a key time, because the Democratic Party was in need of a teachable moment, and Bill Clinton was a few hours away from taking the convention stage. His pupil this evening: Barack Obama. His lesson plan: how to craft a winning message.
As delegates and the media masses awaited the former president's address, the main question was whether he would outshine Obama. The answer was obvious: Of course he would, at least for the night; Clinton is a publicity supernova. But Obama seems to have calculated that it's worth it.
The Clintons have become something close to royalty among Democrats. Polls show that 69 percent of Americans view the former president favorably, and ratings for his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are virtually identical. That puts both leaps ahead of Obama, who stood at 47 percent in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. The admiration extends, apparently, even to the Republican ticket. On Wednesday morning, GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan compared Clinton's record on welfare reform favorably with Obama's and said: "My guess is we'll get a great rendition of how good things were in the 1990s, but we're not going to hear much about how things have been in the last four years."
Republican nominee Mitt Romney also has spoken fondly of the Clinton years. "Almost a generation ago, Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over," Romney said in the spring. "President Obama tucked away the Clinton doctrine in his large drawer of discarded ideas, along with transparency and bipartisanship."
Both men, in making Clinton their favorite Democrat, seem to have forgotten much of the 1990s, the time of Whitewater and impeachment and Monica Lewinsky and Ken Starr and Vince Foster and Hillarycare and government shutdowns and counterculture McGoverniks. Clinton was considered so radioactive in 2000 that his vice president, Al Gore, used him very little in his presidential campaign - a decision that may have cost Gore the election.
Obama didn't need Bill Clinton in 2008, when the former president was still sore about the "fairy tale" Democratic primary campaign Obama ran against Hillary Clinton and when Obama's gauzy message of hope and change was enough to prevail during an economic collapse.
But now Obama is in trouble, clinging to a slight lead over a weak opponent, and his weakness is Clinton's strength: the ability to create a narrative in defense of his policies. "Clinton understood the importance of how having a public theory to the case is critical to governing," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who worked in the Clinton White House and has been making the rounds here in Charlotte. "You simply cannot govern in this day and age and hope to bend the arc of history without a public thesis that inspires support." Lehane argued that Clinton was successful because he "shaped the public ecology."
Because Clinton shaped that ecology, a large majority of Americans continued to approve of the job he was doing as president - even as they took an unfavorable view of him personally. Obama has not created such an ecology, so his job-approval rating (measuring his policies) and his favorability rating (measuring him personally) are virtually identical.
Of course, Clinton governed during a time of prosperity, so it's unfair to assume that he would have handled the current environment any better than Obama has. But two narratives have arisen in Charlotte to underscore the theory that Obama is in trouble and needs Clinton's help.
First, the president's acceptance speech was moved from Bank of America Stadium to a smaller indoor arena - ostensibly because of the risk of thunderstorms but widely attributed to fear that the stadium wouldn't be full. Then came word, reported by The Washington Post's Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had dropped his honorary chairmanship of Obama's campaign to focus on raising money for the pro-Obama super PAC - a sign that Obama's fundraising is falling short. Emanuel, a top White House staffer for Clinton and Obama, was asked at a breakfast Wednesday to preview both men's speeches to the convention.
"I think the president, both on politics and policy, can draw parallels and similarity," he said, then caught himself. "That is president Clinton," he clarified.
danamilbank@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1014 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 6, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Master of the art of the media buy Master of the art of the media buy
BYLINE: Bill Turque
SECTION: A section; Pg. A21
LENGTH: 1644 words
If you've watched even a bit of television in 2012, you've probably seen Bruce Mentzer's handiwork.
Mentzer doesn't create the spots - his specialty is figuring out when, where and how often they run. His firm, Mentzer Media Services, has purchased at least $75 million in commercial time, mostly with money raised by three groups that have taken campaign spending to stratospheric levels in an effort to unseat President Obama. They are Restore Our Future, the super PAC run by former Romney advisers; Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit organization with close ties to the tea party movement and billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch; and American Crossroads, advised by Republican strategist Karl Rove. Their zeal has vaulted Mentzer, who keeps a percentage of the time's purchase price, to the top of the small but critical campaign subspecialty of media buying. He's one beneficiary of the windfall that 2012 has brought to Washington's consultant class of admakers, pollsters, direct mailers and social-media gurus. Not to mention television stations grown flush from the premium rates they can charge super PACs and other independent groups for airtime.
Fueled by new rules allowing unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions, spending on television advertising in local and national races could top $3 billion, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, the ad-tracking firm.
"It's a consultant's dream, all the money that's on the table," said Donna Brazile, co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee.Mentzer, 49, who works not in Georgetown or Old Town but from a three-story office building near a shopping mall in Towson, Md., has had a hand in proliferating some of the era's best-known Republican ads. He declined multiple interview requests, saying in an e-mail: "We have simply been too busy this cycle for me to respond to all the requests we have received from the press."
His team draws on consumer research, demography, polling and Nielsen ratings to essentially place bets on where to best reach targeted voters.
Take one week in Pittsburgh (Aug. 13 to 20), strategically important because stations there also reach portions of eastern Ohio. Mentzer's firm bought $143,440 worth of time on behalf of Restore Our Future and Americans for Prosperity for 235 half-minute ads, according to station filings with the Federal Communications Commission. Most were clustered around local newscasts, with lower prices and audiences known to be rich in frequent voters. Four spots on KDKA's 5 p.m. news, for example, went for $700 each. Because research shows that Republicans like sports events and crime procedurals, a lot of the dollars also went to single spots on pricier prime-time shows such as "The Mentalist," where one 30-second ad cost $1,650, and "Hawaii Five-O" ($2,100).
More challenging is the continued fragmentation of audiences. The rise of niche cable channels and video-on-demand sites has made effective media buying a constantly moving target. It means, for instance, that reaching likely-to-vote independents in a critical media market might require mixing traditional buys with the right slots on the Golf and Weather channels or the Game Show Network.
Clients said Mentzer's grasp of the new-media world inspires confidence.
"It's comforting to have Bruce in the room because he is so smart about what to do," said Adam Goodman, a Florida-based Republican consultant who has used Mentzer for years in congressional and legislative campaigns. His father, Republican admaker Robert Goodman, hired Mentzer out of college for his Baltimore agency. Mentzer opened his own firm in 1991.
Mentzer benefits significantly from his association with Larry McCarthy, the Republican media consultant who has produced some of the most compelling - and sometimes misleading - ads of the last two decades.
McCarthy, who did not return a phone message, is best known for the racially loaded Willie Horton ad that helped to undo Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. (Mentzer did not sell time for the spot; McCarthy produced it for an independent group.)
McCarthy, Mitt Romney's ad maker in 2008, now creates spots for the pro-Romney Restore our Future as well as Americans for Prosperity and American Crossroads.
Mentzer placed his work for Restore Our Future all over the primary season map, pummeling Rick Santorum from Michigan to Alabama as a big spender and Washington insider, and slamming Newt Gingrich in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida for ethical "baggage."
Fact checkers had issues with some of the ads. But with two months until Election Day, and a constellation of big-spending groups committed to defeating Obama, Mentzer will continue his lucrative search for pockets of airtime that might be used to pick up a vote.turqueb@washpost.com
For previous Influence Industry columns, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage.
If you've watched even a bit of television in 2012, you've probably seen Bruce Mentzer's handiwork.
Mentzer doesn't create the spots - his specialty is figuring out when, where and how often they run. His firm, Mentzer Media Services, has purchased at least $75 million in commercial time, mostly with money raised by three groups that have taken campaign spending to stratospheric levels in an effort to unseat President Obama. They are Restore Our Future, the super PAC run by former Romney advisers; Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit organization with close ties to the tea party movement and billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch; and American Crossroads, advised by Republican strategist Karl Rove. Their zeal has vaulted Mentzer, who keeps a percentage of the time's purchase price, to the top of the small but critical campaign subspecialty of media buying. He's one beneficiary of the windfall that 2012 has brought to Washington's consultant class of admakers, pollsters, direct mailers and social-media gurus. Not to mention television stations grown flush from the premium rates they can charge super PACs and other independent groups for airtime.
Fueled by new rules allowing unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions, spending on television advertising in local and national races could top $3 billion, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, the ad-tracking firm.
"It's a consultant's dream, all the money that's on the table," said Donna Brazile, co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Mentzer, 49, who works not in Georgetown or Old Town but from a three-story office building near a shopping mall in Towson, Md., has had a hand in proliferating some of the era's best-known Republican ads. He declined multiple interview requests, saying in an e-mail: "We have simply been too busy this cycle for me to respond to all the requests we have received from the press."
His team draws on consumer research, demography, polling and Nielsen ratings to essentially place bets on where to best reach targeted voters.
Take one week in Pittsburgh (Aug. 13 to 20), strategically important because stations there also reach portions of eastern Ohio. Mentzer's firm bought $143,440 worth of time on behalf of Restore Our Future and Americans for Prosperity for 235 half-minute ads, according to station filings with the Federal Communications Commission. Most were clustered around local newscasts, with lower prices and audiences known to be rich in frequent voters. Four spots on KDKA's 5 p.m. news, for example, went for $700 each. Because research shows that Republicans like sports events and crime procedurals, a lot of the dollars also went to single spots on pricier prime-time shows such as "The Mentalist," where one 30-second ad cost $1,650, and "Hawaii Five-O" ($2,100).
More challenging is the continued fragmentation of audiences. The rise of niche cable channels and video-on-demand sites has made effective media buying a constantly moving target. It means, for instance, that reaching likely-to-vote independents in a critical media market might require mixing traditional buys with the right slots on the Golf and Weather channels or the Game Show Network.
Clients said Mentzer's grasp of the new-media world inspires confidence.
"It's comforting to have Bruce in the room because he is so smart about what to do," said Adam Goodman, a Florida-based Republican consultant who has used Mentzer for years in congressional and legislative campaigns. His father, Republican admaker Robert Goodman, hired Mentzer out of college for his Baltimore agency. Mentzer opened his own firm in 1991.
Mentzer benefits significantly from his association with Larry McCarthy, the Republican media consultant who has produced some of the most compelling - and sometimes misleading - ads of the last two decades. McCarthy, who did not return a phone message, is best known for the racially loaded Willie Horton ad that helped to undo Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. (Mentzer did not sell time for the spot; McCarthy produced it for an independent group.)
McCarthy, Mitt Romney's ad maker in 2008, now creates spots for the pro-Romney Restore our Future as well as Americans for Prosperity and American Crossroads.
Mentzer placed his work for Restore Our Future all over the primary season map, pummeling Rick Santorum from Michigan to Alabama as a big spender and Washington insider, and slamming Newt Gingrich in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida for ethical "baggage."
Fact checkers had issues with some of the ads. But with two months until Election Day, and a constellation of big-spending groups committed to defeating Obama, Mentzer will continue his lucrative search for pockets of airtime that might be used to pick up a vote.
turqueb@washpost.com
For previous Influence Industry columns, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage.
LOAD-DATE: September 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1015 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
September 6, 2012 Thursday 6:55 PM EST
Convention speakers: Romney fired us;
Three speakers in a row blamed Mitt Romney and Bain Capital for destroying the places they worked -- essentially, an Obama campaign attack ad in convention form.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 163 words
Three speakers in a row blamed Mitt Romney and Bain Capital for destroying their livelihoods - essentially, a live Obama campaign attack ad.
"America cannot afford Romney economics," said Randy Johnson of Indiana's Ampad. "Mitt Romney will stick to working people."
"Romney and his partners shut our plant down and ultimately drove our company into bankruptcy," said Cindy Hewitt, a former human resources manager at Dade Behring. "By the time Romney and his partners were done with us we'd lost 850 jobs in Florida." Romney's business experience, she said, "is not experience creating good paying jobs, it is experience destroying jobs."
David Foster, a union organizer from Minnesota, had a similar story. "When Romney and Bain took over the mill, they loaded it up with millions in debt and within months they used some of that borrowed money to pay themselves millions," he said.
Foster may look familiar - he appeared in an infamous Obama ad in which he called Bain a "vampire."
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1016 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
September 6, 2012 Thursday 5:45 PM EST
Ad watch: Romney plays Clinton against Obama;
GOP nominee tries to use top Obama surrogate against him.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 131 words
The Romney campaign ad, "Give Me A Break":
What it says:"As the economy gets worse, Barack Obama calls on Bill Clinton to help his failing campaign. ... But what did Bill Clinton sayaboutBarack Obama in 2008?"
The ad includes a clip of Clinton saying in January of 2008: "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Clinton was campaigning for Hillary Clinton in 2008 at the time, when he made the remark regarding Obama's claim that he consistently opposed the Iraq War.
What it means: You know that guy everyone is pointing to as Obama's mostvaluablesurrogate? He wasn't as big a fan in 2008.
Who will see it: The Romney campaign did not immediately provide information about where the ad will air.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1017 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
September 6, 2012 Thursday 3:30 AM EST
Bill Clinton makes passionate case for Obama;
Bill Clinton tweaked his speech until the last minute.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 276 words
"Are you better off?" has become a mantra of Mitt Romney's campaign. On Wednesday night, former president Bill Clinton embraced the question.
"Are we where want to be? No," he told a rapt audience. "Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month? The answer is yes."
Later he added, "I love our country so much and I know we're coming back."
While most of the major Democratic convention speeches thus far have highlighted personal biography, Clinton needs no introduction. He devoted his lengthy remarks almost entirely to policy and governing philosophy. He began with an attack on Republicans for resisting compromise and touted Obama's policies on the auto industry, energy production, health-care and more.
The speech seemed designed not just to fire up Obama supporters but to provide them with talking points. "You need to tell every voter where you live about this," he said of Obama's student loan policy. "Don't you ever forget," he said repeatedly.
As he often does, Clinton reportedly worked on his speech until the last minute, and sizable chunks were ad-libbed. Praising Obama's ability to move beyond politics, he joked - "He even hired Hillary!" Attacking Paul Ryan for lambasting Medicare cuts that are in his own budget, he improvised, "You gotta say one thing, it's takes somebrass to attack a guy for doing what you just did."
The speech was longer than the one Clinton gave in 1988, when he was applauded just for finally getting off-stage. But 24 years later, no one seemed to mind.
Obama came on stage and linked arms with Clinton, to huge applause.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1018 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 6, 2012 Thursday
Regional Edition
Master of the art of the media buy
BYLINE: Bill Turque
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A21
LENGTH: 1631 words
If you've watched even a bit of television in 2012, you've probably seen Bruce Mentzer's handiwork.
Mentzer doesn't create the spots - his specialty is figuring out when, where and how often they run. His firm, Mentzer Media Services, has purchased at least $75 million in commercial time, mostly with money raised by three groups that have taken campaign spending to stratospheric levels in an effort to unseat President Obama. They are Restore Our Future, the super PAC run by former Romney advisers; Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit organization with close ties to the tea party movement and billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch; and American Crossroads, advised by Republican strategist Karl Rove.
Their zeal has vaulted Mentzer, who keeps a percentage of the time's purchase price, to the top of the small but critical campaign subspecialty of media buying. He's one beneficiary of the windfall that 2012 has brought to Washington's consultant class of admakers, pollsters, direct mailers and social-media gurus. Not to mention television stations grown flush from the premium rates they can charge super PACs and other independent groups for airtime.
Fueled by new rules allowing unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions, spending on television advertising in local and national races could top $3 billion, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, the ad-tracking firm.
"It's a consultant's dream, all the money that's on the table," said Donna Brazile, co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Mentzer, 49, who works not in Georgetown or Old Town but from a three-story office building near a shopping mall in Towson, Md., has had a hand in proliferating some of the era's best-known Republican ads. He declined multiple interview requests, saying in an e-mail: "We have simply been too busy this cycle for me to respond to all the requests we have received from the press."
His team draws on consumer research, demography, polling and Nielsen ratings to essentially place bets on where to best reach targeted voters.
Take one week in Pittsburgh (Aug. 13 to 20), strategically important because stations there also reach portions of eastern Ohio. Mentzer's firm bought $143,440 worth of time on behalf of Restore Our Future and Americans for Prosperity for 235 half-minute ads, according to station filings with the Federal Communications Commission. Most were clustered around local newscasts, with lower prices and audiences known to be rich in frequent voters. Four spots on KDKA's 5 p.m. news, for example, went for $700 each. Because research shows that Republicans like sports events and crime procedurals, a lot of the dollars also went to single spots on pricier prime-time shows such as "The Mentalist," where one 30-second ad cost $1,650, and "Hawaii Five-O" ($2,100).
More challenging is the continued fragmentation of audiences. The rise of niche cable channels and video-on-demand sites has made effective media buying a constantly moving target. It means, for instance, that reaching likely-to-vote independents in a critical media market might require mixing traditional buys with the right slots on the Golf and Weather channels or the Game Show Network.
Clients said Mentzer's grasp of the new-media world inspires confidence.
"It's comforting to have Bruce in the room because he is so smart about what to do," said Adam Goodman, a Florida-based Republican consultant who has used Mentzer for years in congressional and legislative campaigns. His father, Republican admaker Robert Goodman, hired Mentzer out of college for his Baltimore agency. Mentzer opened his own firm in 1991.
Mentzer benefits significantly from his association with Larry McCarthy, the Republican media consultant who has produced some of the most compelling - and sometimes misleading - ads of the last two decades.
McCarthy, who did not return a phone message, is best known for the racially loaded Willie Horton ad that helped to undo Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. (Mentzer did not sell time for the spot; McCarthy produced it for an independent group.)
McCarthy, Mitt Romney's ad maker in 2008, now creates spots for the pro-Romney Restore our Future as well as Americans for Prosperity and American Crossroads.
Mentzer placed his work for Restore Our Future all over the primary season map, pummeling Rick Santorum from Michigan to Alabama as a big spender and Washington insider, and slamming Newt Gingrich in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida for ethical "baggage."
Fact checkers had issues with some of the ads. But with two months until Election Day, and a constellation of big-spending groups committed to defeating Obama, Mentzer will continue his lucrative search for pockets of airtime that might be used to pick up a vote.
turqueb@washpost.com
For previous Influence Industry columns, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage.
If you've watched even a bit of television in 2012, you've probably seen Bruce Mentzer's handiwork.
Mentzer doesn't create the spots - his specialty is figuring out when, where and how often they run. His firm, Mentzer Media Services, has purchased at least $75 million in commercial time, mostly with money raised by three groups that have taken campaign spending to stratospheric levels in an effort to unseat President Obama. They are Restore Our Future, the super PAC run by former Romney advisers; Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit organization with close ties to the tea party movement and billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch; and American Crossroads, advised by Republican strategist Karl Rove.
Their zeal has vaulted Mentzer, who keeps a percentage of the time's purchase price, to the top of the small but critical campaign subspecialty of media buying. He's one beneficiary of the windfall that 2012 has brought to Washington's consultant class of admakers, pollsters, direct mailers and social-media gurus. Not to mention television stations grown flush from the premium rates they can charge super PACs and other independent groups for airtime.
Fueled by new rules allowing unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions, spending on television advertising in local and national races could top $3 billion, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, the ad-tracking firm.
"It's a consultant's dream, all the money that's on the table," said Donna Brazile, co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Mentzer, 49, who works not in Georgetown or Old Town but from a three-story office building near a shopping mall in Towson, Md., has had a hand in proliferating some of the era's best-known Republican ads. He declined multiple interview requests, saying in an e-mail: "We have simply been too busy this cycle for me to respond to all the requests we have received from the press."
His team draws on consumer research, demography, polling and Nielsen ratings to essentially place bets on where to best reach targeted voters.
Take one week in Pittsburgh (Aug. 13 to 20), strategically important because stations there also reach portions of eastern Ohio. Mentzer's firm bought $143,440 worth of time on behalf of Restore Our Future and Americans for Prosperity for 235 half-minute ads, according to station filings with the Federal Communications Commission. Most were clustered around local newscasts, with lower prices and audiences known to be rich in frequent voters. Four spots on KDKA's 5 p.m. news, for example, went for $700 each. Because research shows that Republicans like sports events and crime procedurals, a lot of the dollars also went to single spots on pricier prime-time shows such as "The Mentalist," where one 30-second ad cost $1,650, and "Hawaii Five-O" ($2,100).
More challenging is the continued fragmentation of audiences. The rise of niche cable channels and video-on-demand sites has made effective media buying a constantly moving target. It means, for instance, that reaching likely-to-vote independents in a critical media market might require mixing traditional buys with the right slots on the Golf and Weather channels or the Game Show Network.
Clients said Mentzer's grasp of the new-media world inspires confidence.
"It's comforting to have Bruce in the room because he is so smart about what to do," said Adam Goodman, a Florida-based Republican consultant who has used Mentzer for years in congressional and legislative campaigns. His father, Republican admaker Robert Goodman, hired Mentzer out of college for his Baltimore agency. Mentzer opened his own firm in 1991.
Mentzer benefits significantly from his association with Larry McCarthy, the Republican media consultant who has produced some of the most compelling - and sometimes misleading - ads of the last two decades.
McCarthy, who did not return a phone message, is best known for the racially loaded Willie Horton ad that helped to undo Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. (Mentzer did not sell time for the spot; McCarthy produced it for an independent group.)
McCarthy, Mitt Romney's ad maker in 2008, now creates spots for the pro-Romney Restore our Future as well as Americans for Prosperity and American Crossroads.
Mentzer placed his work for Restore Our Future all over the primary season map, pummeling Rick Santorum from Michigan to Alabama as a big spender and Washington insider, and slamming Newt Gingrich in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida for ethical "baggage."
Fact checkers had issues with some of the ads. But with two months until Election Day, and a constellation of big-spending groups committed to defeating Obama, Mentzer will continue his lucrative search for pockets of airtime that might be used to pick up a vote.
turqueb@washpost.com
For previous Influence Industry columns, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage.
LOAD-DATE: September 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1019 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 6, 2012 Thursday
Met 2 Edition
Clinton takes spotlight - for a night
BYLINE: Dana Milbank
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 1635 words
DATELINE: CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE -
Moments before Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic Party's convention, word bubbled through the Time Warner Cable Arena that President Obama would join him on the podium after his speech.
This made official what was already implicit: The sitting president had come to bask in the former president's glow. Obama will accept the Democrats' presidential nomination on Thursday night, but on Wednesday night, he was in Clinton's house.
Obama was backstage while the audience clapped along to the old Clinton theme song, Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop." The 20,000 jamming the hall watched footage of Clinton's past triumphs - "longest economic expansion in history" - and then erupted in cheers as Clinton strolled slowly onto the stage, giving a thumbs-up to the cameras.
His speech - a meandering Clintonian mix of folksiness and savage partisanship - was illuminated by the sparkle of thousands of camera flashes and punctuated with regular shouts of "We love you, Bill!" Inevitably, the subject matter frequently returned to the speaker's favorite topic: Bill Clinton.
"Thankfully, by 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States," he reminded the delegates.
"People ask me all the time how we delivered four surplus budgets," he confided, adding: "Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office, and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left."
The 42nd president further reminded the delegates that "I was just a country boy from Arkansas," and that "I love our country so much." There was also that "welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work."
But what about Obama? "President Obama appointed several members of his Cabinet even though they supported Hillary in the primary. Heck, he even appointed Hillary."
Obama and his advisers knew that this was exactly what was going to happen. But they calculated that it was worth risking the perception that Obama was trying to ride a former president's coattails to reelection. In the end, that gamble will probably prove to be a good one, because Clinton, a far more popular figure than Obama, bestowed his blessing on the president unambiguously, in some ways making the case for Obama's reelection more cogently than Obama has made it.
"No president - not me, not any of my predecessors, no one - could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years," Clinton told the crowd. "But he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity, and if you will renew the president's contract, you will feel it. You will feel it."
Clinton, with his far better track record, was apologizing for Obama, and vouching for him. "Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election," he said, departing from the words on his teleprompter. "I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it."
That's worth a lot to Obama, who was viewed favorably by just 47 percent in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. Clinton, by contrast, is at 69 percent in a new USA Today/Gallup poll. The Republican ticket, recognizing that disparity, tried to drive a wedge between the two men. "My guess is we'll get a great rendition of how good things were in the 1990s," Paul Ryan said Wednesday morning.
The GOP vice presidential nominee was right about that. But in elevating Clinton in their rhetoric and trying to paint him as a moderate who is out of step with Obama, the Republicans invited the fierce attacks Clinton delivered: criticizing Mitt Romney for being loose with the facts, chastising congressional Republicans for their blind partisanship and mocking Ryan for his hypocrisy on Medicare. "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did," he said.
As is typical of Clinton, the speech wandered widely even when he wasn't ad-libbing ("Y'all watch their convention?"), and it became something of a policy laundry list that went overtime by nearly half an hour. But he gave Obama what he wanted: a strong personal endorsement.
"I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States," Clinton said. "And I proudly nominate him to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party."
As promised, Obama strode onto the stage after the speech, and the two leaders embraced in a bear hug. Obama, his hand on Clinton's shoulder, then tried to lead his Democratic predecessor off the stage - but Clinton kept returning to the crowd for more hugs and handshakes. Finally, Obama decided to wait backstage for a few moments until Clinton finished enjoying his night.
danamilbank@washpost.com
For more Washington Sketch columns, and political videos, visit washingtonpost.com/milbank.
CHARLOTTE
Chelsea Clinton, in her role as an NBC News correspondent, was moderating a panel on education Wednesday afternoon at the Democratic National Convention when she decided to personalize the issue with a rare journalistic technique - invoking her presidential dad.
Because of teacher certification rules, she said, "my father wouldn't be allowed to teach civics or history."
"He'd be very engaging," one of the others on the panel contributed.
"One of the best teachers I ever had," Clinton replied with a broad smile.
This news bulletin from correspondent Clinton came at a key time, because the Democratic Party was in need of a teachable moment, and Bill Clinton was a few hours away from taking the convention stage. His pupil this evening: Barack Obama. His lesson plan: how to craft a winning message.
As delegates and the media masses awaited the former president's address, the main question was whether he would outshine Obama. The answer was obvious: Of course he would, at least for the night; Clinton is a publicity supernova. But Obama seems to have calculated that it's worth it.
The Clintons have become something close to royalty among Democrats. Polls show that 69 percent of Americans view the former president favorably, and ratings for his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are virtually identical. That puts both leaps ahead of Obama, who stood at 47 percent in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The admiration extends, apparently, even to the Republican ticket. On Wednesday morning, GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan compared Clinton's record on welfare reform favorably with Obama's and said: "My guess is we'll get a great rendition of how good things were in the 1990s, but we're not going to hear much about how things have been in the last four years."
Republican nominee Mitt Romney also has spoken fondly of the Clinton years. "Almost a generation ago, Bill Clinton announced that the era of big government was over," Romney said in the spring. "President Obama tucked away the Clinton doctrine in his large drawer of discarded ideas, along with transparency and bipartisanship."
Both men, in making Clinton their favorite Democrat, seem to have forgotten much of the 1990s, the time of Whitewater and impeachment and Monica Lewinsky and Ken Starr and Vince Foster and Hillarycare and government shutdowns and counterculture McGoverniks. Clinton was considered so radioactive in 2000 that his vice president, Al Gore, used him very little in his presidential campaign - a decision that may have cost Gore the election.
Obama didn't need Bill Clinton in 2008, when the former president was still sore about the "fairy tale" Democratic primary campaign Obama ran against Hillary Clinton and when Obama's gauzy message of hope and change was enough to prevail during an economic collapse.
But now Obama is in trouble, clinging to a slight lead over a weak opponent, and his weakness is Clinton's strength: the ability to create a narrative in defense of his policies. "Clinton understood the importance of how having a public theory to the case is critical to governing," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who worked in the Clinton White House and has been making the rounds here in Charlotte. "You simply cannot govern in this day and age and hope to bend the arc of history without a public thesis that inspires support." Lehane argued that Clinton was successful because he "shaped the public ecology."
Because Clinton shaped that ecology, a large majority of Americans continued to approve of the job he was doing as president - even as they took an unfavorable view of him personally. Obama has not created such an ecology, so his job-approval rating (measuring his policies) and his favorability rating (measuring him personally) are virtually identical.
Of course, Clinton governed during a time of prosperity, so it's unfair to assume that he would have handled the current environment any better than Obama has. But two narratives have arisen in Charlotte to underscore the theory that Obama is in trouble and needs Clinton's help.
First, the president's acceptance speech was moved from Bank of America Stadium to a smaller indoor arena - ostensibly because of the risk of thunderstorms but widely attributed to fear that the stadium wouldn't be full. Then came word, reported by The Washington Post's Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel had dropped his honorary chairmanship of Obama's campaign to focus on raising money for the pro-Obama super PAC - a sign that Obama's fundraising is falling short.
Emanuel, a top White House staffer for Clinton and Obama, was asked at a breakfast Wednesday to preview both men's speeches to the convention.
"I think the president, both on politics and policy, can draw parallels and similarity," he said, then caught himself. "That is president Clinton," he clarified.
danamilbank@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1020 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 6, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
If Democrats face enthusiasm gap, it wasn't evident on opening night
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 2053 words
DATELINE: CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE - Democrats may face an enthusiasm gap in November, hope and change having lost much of their glow. But you wouldn't know it from the opening night of the party's convention.
Democrats put on a rousing show Tuesday, a program of powerful political oratory and optics capped by first lady Michelle Obama's address. The evening's speakers built on one another to deliver a consistent message, and the arena was packed with delegates eager to express support for an embattled President Obama.
Democrats need a good convention. Obama's political vulnerabilities are clear and rival Mitt Romney's opportunities obvious. Charlotte can't be a reenactment of Denver in 2008. But anything that conveys a loss of hope, disappointment in the president or a slackening of enthusiasm will be magnified manyfold by the media assembled here this week.
The contest remains a statistical tie nationally. Romney didn't get a noticeable boost in the polls from his convention. But he did use his gathering to improve his image, even if that was primarily among Republicans. If Obama can do better than that, if he can move the polls a few points with his convention, he will begin the final phase of the race in better shape than many expected.
It's far too soon to make judgments about the overall impact of this convention, but the contrast with the beginning of the Republican gathering in Tampa last week was palpable. That's why Tuesday's start was important.
In Tampa, the opening night was marked by a lack of energy on the floor. The aisles in the arena were wide open. Delegates talked among themselves throughout almost all the speeches, other than those by Ann Romney and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
One measure: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker received hearty applause when he was introduced, reflecting his widespread popularity in the party. But he rarely roused the crowd once he began speaking and exited the stage to much milder adulation.
If the enthusiasm in Tampa was mostly anti-Obama rather than pro-Romney, it was different in Charlotte. On Tuesday, the floor was alive with energy. People crowded into every space available. The Obama convention team had distributed placards and signs to augment the messages from different speakers, and they were used to good effect when both Michelle Obama and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro delivered their prime-time addresses.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, never given to understatement, offered a predictably bullish assessment of opening night. "We had more energy in one night than [Republicans] had in four," he said at a Wednesday breakfast held by The Washington Post and Bloomberg News.
Discounting for partisan cheerleading (and the fact that Republicans had only three nights in Tampa because of a hurricane threat), Emanuel managed to sum up something that was unmistakable to anyone roaming the floor at the Time Warner Cable Arena on Tuesday night.
But there was much more than optics and good signage that helped Democrats begin a convention that is being conducted in the shadow of what took place four years ago in Denver.
The program included a video tribute to the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) that morphed into an anti-Romney ad, featuring footage from a Kennedy-Romney debate in 1994 when Kennedy demolished his challenger and put his reelection campaign on a path to victory.
Most speakers in Tampa seemed hesitant to criticize Obama harshly. In Charlotte, the speakers on the undercard roused the delegates with sharp attacks on Romney.
Former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, a victim of the Republican tsunami two years into Obama's presidency, was full-throated in his assault. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick had the audience cheering as he went after Romney's record as governor there.
Other speakers dealt with other business. Emanuel, Obama's first White House chief of staff, defended the administration's early record. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley engaged delegates with a series of "forward" and "back" lines that drove one of the main themes of contrast that the president's campaign has worked on all summer.
Those speeches reflected different parts of an overall message and served as a prelude to the evening's two major speakers. Castro's keynote address delivered, both in content and execution. He made his case against Romney more directly and effectively than Christie made his against Obama a week earlier. He defended Obama more directly and effectively than Christie defended Romney.
He used humor and timing to skewer the Republican nominee. But he also used direct language to go after Romney, GOP vice presidential running mate Paul Ryan and their fellow Republicans. "The Romney-Ryan budget doesn't just cut public education, cut Medicare, cut transportation and cut job training," he said. "It doesn't just pummel the middle class - it dismantles it. It dismantles what generations before have built to ensure that everybody can enter and stay in the middle class."
Michelle Obama - who spoke as a first lady, a wife and a mother - gave a passionately personal speech about her husband, their family and a set of values that are at the heart of the contrast Democrats want to draw with Republicans.
She never mentioned Romney but didn't have to, because she was hardly subtle in trying to convey that her husband is more closely connected to the lives of ordinary people than the GOP nominee is. "Barack knows the American dream because he's lived it," she said, "and he wants everyone in this country to have that same opportunity."
The president's speech on Thursday night will determine how successful the Democratic convention turns out to be. And with the electorate as settled as it is in its division over the choice in November, it's more likely than not that the presidential race in two weeks will look about the way it does now. But Democrats' opening night program will be remembered.
balzd@washpost.com
For more Dan Balz columns, go to postpolitics.com.
CHARLOTTE - Democrats may face an enthusiasm gap in November, hope and change having lost much of their glow. But you wouldn't know it from the opening night of the party's convention.
Democrats put on a rousing show Tuesday, a program of powerful political oratory and optics, capped by first lady Michelle Obama's address. The evening's speakers built on one another to deliver a consistent message, and the arena was packed with delegates eager to express support for an embattled President Obama.
Democrats need a good convention. Obama's political vulnerabilities are clear and rival Mitt Romney's opportunities obvious. Charlotte can't be a reenactment of Denver in 2008. But anything that conveys the loss of hope, disappointment in the president or a slackening of enthusiasm will be magnified manyfold by the media assembled here this week.
The contest remains a statistical tie nationally. Romney didn't get a noticeable boost in the polls from his convention. But he did use his gathering to improve his image, even if that was primarily among Republicans. If Obama can do better than that, if he can move the polls a few points with his convention, he will begin the final phase of the race in better shape than many expected.
It's far too soon to make judgments about the overall impact of this convention, but the contrast with the beginning of the Republican gathering in Tampa last week was palpable. That's why Tuesday's start was important.
In Tampa, the opening night was marked by a lack of energy on the floor. The aisles in the arena were wide open. Delegates talked among themselves throughout almost all the speeches, other than those by Ann Romney and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
One measure: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker received hearty applause when he was introduced, reflecting his widespread popularity in the party. But he rarely roused the crowd once he began speaking and exited the stage to much milder adulation.
If the enthusiasm in Tampa was mostly anti-Obama rather than pro-Romney, it was different in Charlotte. On Tuesday, the floor was alive with energy. People crowded into every space available. The Obama convention team had distributed placards and signs to augment the messages from different speakers, and they were used to good effect when both Michelle Obama and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro delivered their prime-time addresses.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, never given to understatement, offered a predictably bullish assessment of opening night. "We had more energy in one night than [Republicans] had in four," he said at a Wednesday breakfast held by The Washington Post and Bloomberg News.
Discounting for partisan cheerleading (and the fact that Republicans had only three nights in Tampa because of a hurricane threat), Emanuel managed to sum up something that was unmistakable for anyone roaming the floor at the Time Warner Cable Arena on Tuesday night.
But there was much more than optics and good signage that helped Democrats begin a convention that is being conducted in the shadow of what took place four years ago in Denver.
The program included a video tribute to the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) that morphed into an anti-Romney ad, featuring footage from a Kennedy-Romney debate in 1994 when Kennedy demolished his challenger and put his reelection campaign on a path to victory.
Most speakers in Tampa seemed hesitant to criticize Obama harshly. In Charlotte, the speakers on the undercard roused the delegates with sharp attacks on Romney.
Former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, a victim of the Republican tsunami two years into Obama's presidency, was full-throated in his assault. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick had the audience cheering as he went after Romney's record as governor there.
Other speakers dealt with other business. Emanuel, Obama's first White House chief of staff, defended the administration's early record. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley engaged delegates with a series of "forward" and "back" lines that drove one of the main themes of contrast that the president's campaign has worked on all summer.
Those speeches reflected different parts of an overall message, and served as a prelude to the evening's two major speakers. Castro's keynote address delivered, both in content and execution. He made his case against Romney more directly and effectively than Christie made his against Obama a week earlier. He defended Obama more directly and effectively than Christie defended Romney.
He used humor and timing to skewer the Republican nominee. But he also used direct language to go after Romney, GOP vice presidential running mate Paul Ryan and their fellow Republicans. "The Romney-Ryan budget doesn't just cut public education, cut Medicare, cut transportation and cut job training," he said. "It doesn't just pummel the middle class - it dismantles it. It dismantles what generations before have built to ensure that everybody can enter and stay in the middle class."
Michelle Obama - who spoke as a first lady, a wife and a mother - gave a passionately personal speech about her husband, their family and a set of values that are at the heart of the contrast Democrats want to draw with Republicans.
She never mentioned Romney but didn't have to, because she was hardly subtle in trying to convey that her husband is more closely connected to the lives of ordinary people than the GOP nominee is. "Barack knows the American dream because he's lived it," she said, "and he wants everyone in this country to have that same opportunity."
The president's speech on Thursday night will determine how successful the Democratic convention turns out to be. And with the electorate as settled as it is in its division over the choice in November, it's more likely than not that the presidential race in two weeks will look about the way it does now. But Democrats' opening night program will be remembered.
balzd@washpost.com
For more Dan Balz columns, go to postpolitics.com.
Name Blurb Flag true Variable Size Panel Image Panel Image Background Image
LOAD-DATE: September 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1021 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Learning Network)
September 5, 2012 Wednesday
Great Free Web Sites for Teaching Election 2012
BYLINE: MICHAEL GONCHAR
SECTION: EDUCATION
LENGTH: 1152 words
HIGHLIGHT: We gathered a list of the best election-related Web sites for teachers and organized them by category. Have your students play fantasy election games or find pen pals in a different part of the country to exchange ideas about important issues.
If you're like us, you see the election everywhere on the Web. But finding useful Web sites for the election? That's a different story.
Below, we've gathered a list of what we think are the best election-related Web sites for teachers we've seen, and organized them by category.
And if you haven't looked already, visit our own Election 2012 resource page. There you'll find links to lesson plans (including our special curriculum unit), student crosswords, a special Election 2012 student contest, and links to a huge variety of Times articles, Opinion pieces and multimedia.
Great Free Web Sites for Teaching Election 2012
1. Election Pen Pals: At PenPal News Red Blue you can sign up your classroom to be pen pals with students from a different geographic region in the U.S. Over a six week period, your class will learn about five important election issues that they can write about during their pen-pal partnership.
2. Political Matchmaking: Sometimes the incessant mudslinging and obsessive poll watching hide the fact that the election should really be about the issues that affect our lives and the world we live in. iSideWith.com lets students take a short quiz to find out which candidate is their best match based on their own political opinions.
USA Today's Candidate Match Game II lets students answer questions and watch as the face of President Obama or Mitt Romney shift across the screen depending on the answers they choose.
Or, students can take this Political Party Quiz to be part of a national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. ElectNext is another matchmaking tool, though it requires participants to sign in with an e-mail address or social media connection.
3. Election Lessons: We've created our own flexible, four-part Election Unit that includes lesson ideas and projects and culminates in a mock election.
The Choices Program provides a nice companion: a free "Following the U.S. Presidential Election" lesson that builds students' media literacy skills by having them compare sources as they analyze the news. The Youth Leadership Initiative also provides general election lesson plans and runs its own mock election (see below) and e-Congress.
Edutopia has additional ideas and resources for how to use project-based learning to engage students in the election.
4. Issue Research: The most comprehensive tool for researching the candidate's stance on issues is the nonpartisan nonprofit ProCon.org. The site provides quotations from Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney and the major third party candidates on more than 60 issues.
5. Mock Election: Our own Election Unit provides a curriculum road map for how to organize a mock election in your classroom or school.
National mock elections are also taking place this year online, and you can sign your students up to participate in The My Voice National Student Mock Election or the Youth Leadership Initiative mock election. In addition, we like the detailed mock election curriculum guide (PDF) produced by Michigan Government Television.
6. Election Game: We've seen plenty of buzz about MTV's Fantasy Election, an online game styled after the ultra-popular fantasy football leagues. Participants draft a team of presidential and Congressional candidates and rack up points based on how well the candidates perform in various categories such as transparency and honesty. We signed up ourselves, but it's still too early to tell if the game will appeal to students the same way fantasy sports teams do.
7. Youth Reporting: Are you looking for a way to give your students a voice in this election (besides, of course, through our contest)?
You can get inspired to have your students create their own election videos by watching Youth Communication's Teen Guide to the 2012 Election or New Tech Network's #Myparty12, where students create a party platform and a thirty-second video commercial.
Students are also reporting on the election at What Kids Can Do and Y-Press, Youth Radio and Scholastic.
8. Candidate Commercials: Having students analyze television commercials can help hone their media literacy skills. Watch the candidates' commercials on their respective YouTube channels, or watch historic commercials from past presidential elections on The Living Room Candidate. You can use our Television Commercial Analysis Chart to help guide student analysis.
Students will love FlackCheck.org's exploration of the power of negative advertising through its creative "Could Lincoln Be Elected Today?" series. It also challenges the most egregious inaccuracies in current campaign commercials on its "Taking Down the Worst" page.
9. Debate Watch: NBC Learn, in collaboration with Lynn University, provides a series of K-12 activities to help students prepare for and analyze the presidential debates. The activities use video clips from past debates, news reports and commercials.
10. Candidate Web Sites: The official Web sites for the presidential candidates - Barack Obama, Mitt Romney (and third party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein) -- are worthwhile places to see how the candidates present themselves and their positions on the important issues in this election.
11. Tracking the Election: You can turn your class into election fanatics and have them keep score on how the candidates are doing, in the same way they might pore over sports team stats or Billboard rankings.
The New York Times Electoral Map or Huffington Post Election Dashboard provide colorful visuals for students to follow the electoral scoreboard as we head toward Election Day.
For poll watching, The Times and Politico both offer clear up-to-date swing state results. Or, track a different kind of index with your students, the "Twindex" - a tracking tool that compares Twitter posts about the presidential candidates.
12. Election Math: Carnegie Learning has partnered with NBC Learn to create math problems tied to voter statistics, campaign polling and other election-related topics. For ten more ideas on how to explore mathematics using the election, read our lesson plan "The United States of Numeracy: The Math of a Presidential Campaign."
13. Election Opinion Questions: Every day during the school year we post a new student opinion question, and some of our questions this fall will be election-related, such as our current contest question: "How Would the Presidential Campaigns Change if the Voting Age Were 13?" During this election season NBC Learn will also offer "Weekly Thought Starters".
What free election Web sites will you be using in the classroom this fall? How will you be using them? Let us know in your comments below, and we might add some of your suggestions when we update this post.
Election Unit, Part 4: What Do You Think?
Romney's Speech Caps Republican Convention
Election Unit, Part 3: The Campaign Strategy
Election Unit, Part 2: What Are the Issues?
Election Unit, Part 1: Who Are the Candidates?
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1022 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
September 5, 2012 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
Clinton can bring back Obama's hope
BYLINE: John Hudak
SECTION: EDIT; Pg. 9A
LENGTH: 608 words
The biggest challenge for President Obama this year is to repeat -- or even partially repeat -- his performance four years ago with independent voters. He won these voters 52%-44% but now struggles to persuade them that they should rehire him. Four years ago, the president connected with these voters through hope. This year, he can't.
President Clinton, the man from Hope, Ark., needs to do it for him. Obama doesn't want him to simply give a supportive speech. Obama needs him to convince just the right voters. Clinton doesn't need to help with the African- American vote, the Latino vote or the female vote -- though he might. His key appeal is to a group that both Obama and Romney struggle to reach -- white, working-class, moderate Americans.
Clinton will remind voters tonight of the not-too-distant past when the economy was stronger, the middle class was wealthier, the budget was in balance and he was in the White House. He can do this in a way no GOP president can. In fact, he can do this as no living president can. Clinton remains wildly popular and connects with this critical group in a way the top of neither ticket has. He explains without condescension by speaking a language everyone understands without sounding as if he is simplifying his rhetoric.
Targeting independents
For this year's presidential candidates, persuasive communication is the problem, and Clinton is the solution. Both men have plans to cure the nation's ills; neither man can sell them much beyond his base. Clinton's whole political career focused on appealing to these voters. Perhaps this is a skill he mastered while running in a less polarized time, before 45% of voters were nearly guaranteed to vote Democratic and another 45% almost certain for the GOP.
More than a 30-second TV ad or a campaign rally sound bite, Clinton's speech will argue that Obama is the path forward (or backward to the '90s-era prosperity over which he presided). Some argue that Clinton's performance risks outshining the president, but would that really be a problem? If voters walk into the booth thinking of the prosperity under Democratic President Clinton, won't they want to recreate that time and vote Democratic again?
Clinton's support for Obama will not drive voters to Romney; it can only help the cause.
Speaking from the heart
Before Clinton says a word, many will be cynical about the whole exercise. Others dismiss the effort as Clinton's merely doing his partisan duty. However, given the rocky history between the two, this speech can't be simply what Obama wants. It must also be the speech Clinton wants to give. The former president is convinced that the economic health of the nation is at risk and that Obama represents our only hope. This message will come not out of duty, but from his heart.
As much as Clinton's convention moment advances Obama's interests, it also underlines the current president's political vulnerability. The rock-star status Obama enjoyed in 2008 is gone. The country is divided over his job performance. His remarkable ability to communicate ideas and values falls on deaf ears among critical swing voters.
In reaching out to Clinton, Obama has recognized his own limitations. Indeed, by forcing the president to admit this problem, Clinton might be helping him off his pedestal and making him a figure more of those independent voters can identify with.
The fear and worry that Clinton will outshine the president misses the point. For swing voters -- particularly white, working-class independents -- Clinton must outshine Obama. His re-election requires it.
John Hudak is a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1023 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
September 5, 2012 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
THE CLINTON GAMBLE;
Bill's speech tonight could lift President Obama -- or make him look small in comparison
BYLINE: Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 1464 words
Twenty years after accepting the Democratic nomination for president at Madison Square Garden in New York, Bill Clinton returns to center stage tonight in an effort to help -- but not overshadow -- President Obama.
It's a delicate dance: Both the former president and his eight years in office seem to get more popular with age. Clinton's 69% favorable rating in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll is his highest in the 136 times Gallup has measured it, even at the time of his inauguration in 1993. A month after he left office in 2001, it was 39%.
Perhaps more important, the period of peace, prosperity -- and 23 million new jobs -- over which Clinton presided hasn't been matched since. Democrats are betting that middle-class Americans will warm to those memories and the hope that Obama can replicate them.
So when the 66-year-old elder statesman nominates Obama -- the man who defeated his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for the party nod four years ago -- it will mark both a nostalgic moment for Democrats and a reminder that things aren't going nearly as well today.
"It's a time for which Democrats feel quite proud," recalls former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, Clinton's ally from 1995 to 2000. "We think back to those days as the good old days, and he was the architect."
"Bringing Clinton in is an enormous risk," says former Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich, Clinton's chief counterpart from 1995-98, who compromised with him to balance budgets and overhaul welfare. "He was just a heck of a lot better president than Barack Obama. It will remind you how pathetically bad Obama has been."
Indeed, Clinton's seventh consecutive speaking appearance at a Democratic convention will elicit comparisons with Obama -- some favorable for the president, others not so much -- as well as questions about how the nation's 42nd president can help the 44th win re-election.
The two men have had a strained relationship in the past, caused mostly by Obama's eclipse of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election. But they appeared together in the White House briefing room in December 2010 and golfed together last September, bonding over policy issues along the way.
Clinton's rock star status is reflected in the decision to make him the featured speaker tonight, wedged between first lady Michelle Obama on Tuesday and the president on Thursday. By contrast, former president George W. Bush was absent last week from the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
Out of politics for 12 years, Clinton has seen his popularity rise along with his wife's, who polls at 66% as secretary of State and has not ruled out another presidential campaign in 2016. Obama has a 53% personal favorability rating and a 45% job approval rating.
As head of the Clinton Global Initiative and William J. Clinton Foundation, the ex-president has spent his post-presidency involved in issues such as international development while becoming a multimillionaire on the speaking circuit. He declined a USA TODAY interview request.
Seeking 'positive energy'
Tonight's speech could be particularly important. Obama arrives here today deadlocked with Mitt Romney, a situation Clinton didn't encounter during an easier re-election contest against Bob Dole in 1996. What Clinton has to say -- and how he says it -- could influence the outcome of the campaign.
"An uplifting, unifying message from Bill Clinton could be very helpful to Barack Obama at this point in time, because the country is cynical and disgusted and kind of tired," says Thea Lee, deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO. "A large part of what they're looking for is just the warmth of his personality and his charisma and his positive energy."
Obama can use more than nostalgia and positive energy. He needs to convince Americans that he can deliver even a fraction of the 23 million jobs created during the Clinton years. His administration has suffered a net loss of 300,000 jobs.
Clinton's job is to make that case and to contrast it with the Republican proposal for across-the-board tax cuts and deep domestic spending cuts. He is likely to criticize Romney for an ad -- featuring Clinton -- that accuses Obama of trying to ease welfare work rules.
"This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment," he says in a TV ad getting lots of air time. "President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up, investing in innovation, education and job training. It only works if there is a strong middle class."
Though Democrats who have worked with both men say their economic goals are similar, they say the steep recession Obama inherited and deep differences with Republicans in Congress have prevented him from seeing better results. During 22 months of job growth since October 2010, 3.4 million jobs have been added.
Unlike Clinton, Obama "came into office with an immediate crisis, which then became a long-term crisis," says Elaine Kamarck, who ran the Clinton administration's "reinventing government" effort. "He didn't have the liberty that Clinton did to define his presidency."
Another difference: Though both Clinton and Obama lost their Democratic majorities in Congress after two years, Clinton was able to work with GOP leaders to overhaul welfare at the end of his first term and to produce a balanced budget at the start of his second term. Obama does not have a similar working relationship with Tea Party-infused Republicans.
To many Americans, the memories aren't always fond. Much like Obama, Clinton began his first term in 1993 with a partisan budget and health care plan. That was followed by a government shutdown and, in his second term, by his impeachment after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinton's approval of GOP legislation easing restrictions on banks in 1999 may have paved the way for the financial crisis a decade later.
"Clearly, President Clinton gets the credit for that period, but he certainly put us through a rough time," recalls Bill Hoagland, the Senate Republicans' top budget staffer in the 1990s. "People looking back will set aside some of the faults of President Clinton, and they'll look back at the Clinton years as a time when economic growth eventually came about."
Clinton, unlike Obama, polls well across demographic groups. He's favored by 64% of men, 68% of independents, 63% of whites and 63% of those older than 65.
"He is a person who is credible with both swing voters and particularly with respect to white, working-class voters," says John Podesta, Clinton's last White House chief of staff. To those voters, Clinton can say, "'I understand your lives, I know what you need. What Romney's selling isn't going to help you, and stick with Obama.'"
Clinton can make the policy case against Romney, whose proposals he likens to Bush's: lower taxes and less regulation.
"He can actually show that the two policy approaches that are being debated now are very similar" to the Clinton and Bush policies, says Chris Jennings, Clinton's health adviser in the White House. "Why wouldn't you want the one that ended up in success, rather than the one that ended up in failure?"
Look for Clinton to explain the difference between policies that favor the middle class and those that benefit the wealthy, Jennings says. "He makes the seemingly complex become common sense," he says. "I've seen politicians come and go now for better than 30 years, and there's no one that comes close to him."
The danger of Clinton
Using Clinton too much comes with risk, some Democrats say. He sometimes says the wrong thing, such as in June when he lauded Romney's business career at Bain Capital. His convention speech has not been vetted by the Obama campaign -- only its broad themes.
He also could overshadow Obama -- both in terms of policy results and personal charm. "The possibility that the strongest speech at the convention is delivered by Clinton is very real," says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Personal endorsements are worth only so much, says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. He notes that Clinton's support didn't help his wife win the Democratic nomination in 2008.
Even so, just being associated with the first Democratic president to be re-elected since Franklin Roosevelt is likely to help Obama, most Democrats and outside experts say.
"Clinton's second term was the last identifiable American high -- peace and prosperity, we had an Internet boom, real incomes were going up, there was no rising enemy power on the horizon," says Steven Schier, a presidential historian at Carleton College whose recent book compares Clinton and Obama.
"Looks good in retrospect."
Video mashup: Bill Clinton's speeches at the conventions through the past quarter-century.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: COVER STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1024 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
September 5, 2012 Wednesday 9:32 PM EST
Democrats add platform language on Jerusalem, God;
Republicans had criticized the omission of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the original version.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 521 words
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Obamas image takes a backseat to his results
5 speakers to watch at the Democratic National Convention, Day 2
Elizabeth Warrens all-or-nothing moment
Michelle Obama vs Ann Romney in one chart
Clint Eastwoods lasting impression
Joe Biden, good guy or court jester?
What moving Obamas speech inside means and what it doesnt
Julian Castros next step, and why it might have to wait
Michelle Obama: The antidote to you didnt build that
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* Democratsare reinstating languageas the capital of Israel into the partyplatform. Republicans havecriticizedthe omission, which wasa departurefrom the 2008 Democratic Party platform. The word "God" will also be added to the platform. Thevoicevote to make the changes was close.
* Chicago MayorRahmEmanuelstarted workingwith the pro-President Obama super PAC Priorities USA during the last couple of weeks. The former White House chief of staff said he ishelping, not running the super PAC, and added: Its that simple. Im going to help where I can to get the president re-elected. And this is where I can probably be most helpful in the final days.
* The Club For Growth is up with an$800,000 TV ad buyin the Indiana Senate race. The new spot ties Rep. Joe Donnelly (D) to Obama's policies, including the stimulus and federal health care law. The ad callsDonnellya "typical Washington liberal."
* The Republican Governors Association is up with itsfirst TV adin the Washington gubernatorial race. The 30-second spot says former congressman JayInslee(D) is "a risk our small businesses just can't afford."
* As former president Bill Clinton prepares to address the Charlotte convention this evening, he enjoys a 69 percent favorable rating, according to aUSA Today/Gallup pollconducted Aug. 20-22. Just 27 percent of adults said they hold an unfavorable view of Clinton.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* On Tuesday (the first night of the Democratic National Convention), MSNBCwas the cable news network ratings winnerin prime time, a featwhichwas a first for the network.
* San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, whodeliveredthe keynote address at the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night,saidhe thinks thatbecauseof thegrowingHispanicpopulationand the influx of new inhabitants, Texas will "go purple and then blue within the next six to eight years."
* Rep. Ann MarieBuerkle(R-N.Y.), one of the cycle's mostvulnerableincumbents, has released her firstTV ad of the campaign. It's a biographical spot inwhichBuerklesays she grew up working in her parents' grocery store, where she was raised to believe "that through hard work, we could live the American dream."Buerklefaces a rematch against Democrat DanMaffeiin November.
*The Department of Justice has approveda new voter ID law in New Hampshire. Lawmakers in the state had overridden a veto from Democratic Gov. John Lynch to pass the measure.
THE FIX MIX:
Mail call!
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1025 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 5, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
The media feasts in Charlotte
BYLINE: Dana Milbank
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 844 words
CHARLOTTE
The Democratic National Convention is just getting underway, but already I've been given the treatment. Lots of treatments, actually. I've had my deltoids massaged in candlelight by a licensed therapist; had a foaming pore cleanser and mask applied to my face by an aesthetician; been instructed in the Warrior, Half-Sun Salute and Dancer poses by a yoga instructor; and crawled into a hanging cocoon for a "meditative snooze." I worked up quite an appetite doing all this, so I ordered vegan corn chowder and gluten-free chicken chile verde washed down with Fiji water - all courtesy of the Huffington Post.
Ostensibly, the Huffington Post Oasis offers these spa services gratis to convention delegates as well as to media types. But in practice, said Brendan McDonald, whose Lyfe Kitchen serves the Oasis's healthy fare, "I've only seen the likes of you."
Do not be deceived by all that talk of delegates and floor speeches: This is a convention of the media, by the media and for the media. There are some 15,000 representatives of the media here for the convention, and only about 5,000 delegates. This mathematical imbalance means most journalists spend their time with other journalists at events sponsored by corporations and hosted by media organizations for the purpose of entertaining advertisers and promoting themselves to each other.
There's the Politico Hub (Ketel One Martini bar!), the Bloomberg Link (hot breakfast and goodie bags!), the CNN Grill, the MSNBC Experience and many more. The Atlantic, National Journal and CBS started offering mimosas at 9:30 a.m., and the Hill had a full bar open at 10:30 a.m. in its hospitality suite atop the Charlotte City Club. I attended these events for five hours straight on Tuesday and could not identify a single delegate. Last week's storm-shortened Republican convention in Tampa, visited by a similar media mob, produced no bounce in the polls for Mitt Romney. The situation in Charlotte - thousands of idle journalists and not a serious news story in sight - is one more reason to consign political conventions to the dustbin of history.
My Tuesday began at the Politico Hub, where Mike Allen was interviewing President Obama's confidant Valerie Jarrett.
"He's a human being and he likes to laugh," Jarrett disclosed.
Allen asked if it's true that "they're incredible parents."
"They're absolutely amazing," Jarrett confirmed.
"The young ladies have turned out to be remarkably normal, right?"
"They are very normal."
The dozens of reporters in the crowd, NBC's Mike Isikoff and the Daily Beast's Lloyd Grove among them, munched on scones and fruit (sponsor: Bank of America). Nearby were other pieces of the Hub to be used later in the day: a bar (sponsored by BAE Systems and others) and a Coca-Cola "Refresh Station." An hour later, the Bloomberg Link held its breakfast event - also featuring Jarrett. Attendees, including Time's Mark Halperin, BuzzFeed's Ben Smith and three from The Post editorial page, got purple Bloomberg beachbags containing sunglasses and water bottles. The Bloomberg hosts were pleased with their glitzy digs, two floors above the plaza with MSNBC's set. "It's like spring break out there, and this is like the cool party everybody wants to get into," one Bloomberg guy explained to a guest.
In the plaza, a whiteboard listed MSNBC's scheduled festivities, including a pizza party at noon, "Rev. Al's Blueberry Pie Cafe" at 6 p.m., and viewing parties throughout the day. This was much like the offering at the nearby CNN Grill, which sent out daily updates with the political and media stars "sighted" at the grill, including Charlie Rose, Dave Barry, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper.
From there, I hurried to the National Journal-CBS Breakfast (sponsors include United Technologies, Volkswagen and Pfizer), which featured Obama pollster Joel Benenson informing a roomful of journalists that the president's crowds have been getting bigger.
There was little time to process this wisdom, because I was late for a breakfast done by the Hill (sponsors include Tyco, Allstate and lobbying firm Holland and Knight), where Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) announced that Obama's advisers have been "astonishingly successful." By then I was behind for the Yahoo-ABC News event, so I missed Obama campaign manager Jim Messina telling the roomful of reporters that "the president is building an economy built to last."
There were a dozen media events to go, including Asian-fusion food at Politico, Politics and Pints trivia with The Post's Chris Cillizza, and a RealClearPolitics party. But if I went to the late-night BuzzFeed party at a children's museum, I wondered, could I still make it to Wednesday's breakfast sponsored by Bloomberg and The Post? Possibly - but I'd need a nap at the Huffington Post.
danamilbank@washpost.com For a video version of this column, visit washingtonpost.com/video.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1026 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 5, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Obama would move 'forward,' but then what? Obama would move 'forward,' but then what?
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A section; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 2292 words
CHARLOTTE - There is always one big question at the opening of a political convention, different for each time and place, but something that consumes most of the discussion. In Tampa, it was whether Mitt Romney could warm up his image. In Charlotte, it is whether President Obama will outline a second-term agenda with any more clarity than he has done.
The theme of Obama's campaign is "forward," chosen to convey the impression that the country is moving in the right direction. A majority of Americans think otherwise. There is a strong quotient of policy status quo in what Obama has talked about. He has suggested that the policies he has pursued are working and that, given time, they will lay the foundation for a strong recovery in the future.
He has never really acknowledged that he made mistakes - other than saying he didn't do an adequate job of talking about his accomplishments. Nor has he explained very well why his policies haven't wrenched the economy out of its current state any faster, other than to remind people of the severity of the recession he inherited and the domestic and global uncertainty that has kept growth low and the unemployment rate high.
Not that there are easy answers to a way out of this economic situation. Romney's agenda is a combination of old Republican orthodoxy - tax cuts for all that would give the wealthy another big reduction - with an embrace of running mate Paul Ryan's budget blueprint of spending cuts and entitlement changes. Romney passed up an opportunity at the Republican convention to talk in anything other than generalities about what he would do.
The president has spent a year framing the choice as one of going forward or going back. He began that process last fall, then started his campaign with so-called framing speeches in Ohio and Virginia. A month later, he felt the need to give another (which drew generally weak reviews). He has talked about the issue all summer, and his campaign is running two commercials, one with him and another featuring Bill Clinton, that do the same thing.
That message is more negative than positive, a way for Obama to cast Romney and the GOP as pursuing a backward-looking agenda that would reward the rich at the expense of the middle class, free banks and corporations from regulations, put safety-net programs at risk, and take money away from education and vital domestic programs. Those points will be reinforced by many speakers this week.
Romney's nomination acceptance speech in Tampa was largely devoid of ideology or big choices. He spent more time trying to give people permission to abandon Obama than to sell an agenda that could mean pain for many. Nor did he fill in the blanks of a tax plan that has described the goodies - across-the-board tax cuts - but not the deductions he would have to eliminate to make his numbers add up.
Will Obama do any better when he addresses the Democratic convention Thursday night? His advisers offer an unqualified yes, without details. At a breakfast with reporters hosted by Bloomberg News on Tuesday, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Obama will outline a second-term agenda. "A big difference between what Romney did and what the president will do Thursday night is that he will actually lay out a tangible plan going forward with concrete, achievable things that we can do" to rebuild the economy, she said.
Cutter cited energy, which Romney talked about last week in Tampa. Obama's approach has always favored a more significant commitment to alternative energy investment, Romney's to domestic exploration and production. Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a key long-term initiative that every president, dating back decades, sought but didn't achieve.
Cutter mentioned deficit reduction and said the president has laid out a clear plan. That plan has gone nowhere. Since the debt ceiling negotiations collapsed in the summer of 2011,the president and congressional Republicans have made no serious effort to engage with one another on the deficit. There are informal talks underway on Capitol Hill, but no direct presidential leadership. Obama has been reluctant to embrace credible plans already out there (read: Simpson-Bowles) on the belief that Republicans would unite against it. But if he is as serious about this issue as he and his advisers claim, Thursday's speech provides a moment to show it.
The so-called fiscal cliff - across-the-board-cuts in defense and domestic programs mandated by sequestration and the expiration of George W. Bush-era tax cuts - looms immediately after the election. Inaction could plunge the economy back into recession. Neither Obama nor Romney has addressed this forthrightly in the campaign, although Obama has said he will not extend the reductions for the wealthiest Americans.
Administration officials have been asked repeatedly how the president's second-term priorities might differ from those of his first term. One thing they've cited is immigration reform - a campaign pledge from 2008 that has remained unfulfilled. Obama had other fires to fight when he came into office, and he put health care ahead of all other elective initiatives. But he had big Democratic majorities the first two years of his presidency and still didn't push the issue.
Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville issued a Democracy Corps memo Tuesday that outlined the challenge for Obama. The weak economy, they said, leaves him highly vulnerable. Talking about the past may not do enough to win over voters who might be prepared to vote for him but aren't confident that he has a plan for the next four years.
"We think the country is desperate to know where the president wants to take the country - his vision and plan in the face of weak recovery but more important, the long-term problems facing the country," they wrote.
The more he does that, the smaller Romney's agenda will look, they argued. Framing the choice by talking about how much worse things might be if Romney had been or does become president isn't enough. "While it is right to draw the contrast with Romney," they wrote, "voters really are hungry to know the plan for success."
Convention speeches are not usually the time for laundry lists or bullet points. They are not a State of the Union address or a budget submission. But Romney gave the president a significant opening with his convention speech last week. Obama can seize the future in a way Romney did not. But that will require him to do far more than he has done in this campaign.
balzd@washpost.com
For more Dan Balz columns, go to postpolitics.com.
CHARLOTTE - There is always one big question at the opening of a political convention, different for each time and place, but something that consumes most of the discussion. In Tampa, it was whether Mitt Romney could warm up his image. In Charlotte, it is whether President Obama will outline a second-term agenda with any more clarity than he has done.
The theme of Obama's campaign is "forward," chosen to convey the impression that the country is moving in the right direction. A majority of Americans think otherwise. There is a strong quotient of policy status quo in what Obama has talked about. He has suggested that the policies he has pursued are working and that, given time, they will lay the foundation for a strong recovery in the future.
He has never really acknowledged that he made mistakes - other than saying he didn't do an adequate job of talking about his accomplishments. Nor has he explained very well why his policies haven't wrenched the economy out of its current state any faster, other than to remind people of the severity of the recession he inherited and the domestic and global uncertainty that has kept growth low and the unemployment rate high.
Not that there are easy answers to a way out of this economic situation. Romney's agenda is a combination of old Republican orthodoxy - tax cuts for all that would give the wealthy another big reduction - with an embrace of running mate Paul Ryan's budget blueprint of spending cuts and entitlement changes. Romney passed up an opportunity at the Republican convention to talk in anything other than generalities about what he would do.
The president has spent a year framing the choice as one of going forward or going back. He began that process last fall, then started his campaign with so-called framing speeches in Ohio and Virginia. A month later, he felt the need to give another (which drew generally weak reviews). He has talked about the issue all summer, and his campaign is running two commercials, one with him and another featuring Bill Clinton, that do the same thing.
That message is more negative than positive, a way for Obama to cast Romney and the GOP as pursuing a backward-looking agenda that would reward the rich at the expense of the middle class, free banks and corporations from regulations, put safety-net programs at risk, and take money away from education and vital domestic programs. Those points will be reinforced by many speakers this week.
Romney's nomination acceptance speech in Tampa was largely devoid of ideology or big choices. He spent more time trying to give people permission to abandon Obama than to sell an agenda that could mean pain for many. Nor did he fill in the blanks of a tax plan that has described the goodies - across-the-board tax cuts - but not the deductions he would have to eliminate to make his numbers add up.
Will Obama do any better when he addresses the Democratic convention Thursday night? His advisers offer an unqualified yes, without details. At a breakfast with reporters hosted by Bloomberg News on Tuesday, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Obama will outline a second-term agenda. "A big difference between what Romney did and what the president will do Thursday night is that he will actually lay out a tangible plan going forward with concrete, achievable things that we can do" to rebuild the economy, she said.
Cutter cited energy, which Romney talked about last week in Tampa. Obama's approach has always favored a more significant commitment to alternative energy investment, Romney's to domestic exploration and production. Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a key long-term initiative that every president, dating back decades, sought but didn't achieve.
Cutter mentioned deficit reduction and said the president has laid out a clear plan. That plan has gone nowhere. Since the debt ceiling negotiations collapsed in the summer of 2011,the president and congressional Republicans have made no serious effort to engage with one another on the deficit. There are informal talks underway on Capitol Hill, but no direct presidential leadership. Obama has been reluctant to embrace credible plans already out there (read: Simpson-Bowles) on the belief that Republicans would unite against it. But if he is as serious about this issue as he and his advisers claim, Thursday's speech provides a moment to show it.
The so-called fiscal cliff - across-the-board-cuts in defense and domestic programs mandated by sequestration and the expiration of George W. Bush-era tax cuts - looms immediately after the election. Inaction could plunge the economy back into recession. Neither Obama nor Romney has addressed this forthrightly in the campaign, although Obama has said he will not extend the reductions for the wealthiest Americans.
Administration officials have been asked repeatedly how the president's second-term priorities might differ from those of his first term. One thing they've cited is immigration reform - a campaign pledge from 2008 that has remained unfulfilled. Obama had other fires to fight when he came into office, and he put health care ahead of all other elective initiatives. But he had big Democratic majorities the first two years of his presidency and still didn't push the issue.
Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville issued a Democracy Corps memo Tuesday that outlined the challenge for Obama. The weak economy, they said, leaves him highly vulnerable. Talking about the past may not do enough to win over voters who might be prepared to vote for him but aren't confident that he has a plan for the next four years.
"We think the country is desperate to know where the president wants to take the country - his vision and plan in the face of weak recovery but more important, the long-term problems facing the country," they wrote.
The more he does that, the smaller Romney's agenda will look, they argued. Framing the choice by talking about how much worse things might be if Romney had been or does become president isn't enough. "While it is right to draw the contrast with Romney," they wrote, "voters really are hungry to know the plan for success."
Convention speeches are not usually the time for laundry lists or bullet points. They are not a State of the Union address or a budget submission. But Romney gave the president a significant opening with his convention speech last week. Obama can seize the future in a way Romney did not. But that will require him to do far more than he has done in this campaign.
balzd@washpost.com
For more Dan Balz columns, go to postpolitics.com.
Name Blurb Flag true Variable Size Panel Image Panel Image Background Image
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1027 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 5, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
In N.C., undecideds are tough crowd
BYLINE: Melinda Henneberger
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 805 words
CHARLOTTE - Swing voters under the microscope in a focus group here this week were asked to supply a single word or phrase that sums up how they view President Obama.
And although 24 of the 27 North Carolinians in the room voted for Obama four years ago, here's what they came up with: "Machine-like," "appeaser," "incompetent," "uncertain," "salesman" and "arrogant." There were only a few less-searing assessments, including "multi-tasking," and "negotiator to no avail." Just two of the 27 told GOP message-tester Frank Luntz that Obama has succeeded in his first term. So, should the word that sums up our Democratic president's chances here in North Carolina, where he narrowly won in 2008, be "un-bloomin'-likely"?
You'd think so. Unless, that is, you heard what words these voters associate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney: "Elitist," "silver spoon," "unaware," "rich," "spoiled," and "self-serving." Romney did draw a few sunnier responses: Several people went with the phrase "business savvy," one said "decent," and another "likeable." Not mentioned once: "Mormon."
These undecided voters were not only unsold on either candidate, but were evenly divided on whether their dream POTUS would be a bipartisan conciliator or a tough guy. They don't want gridlock, but also don't want either party in unchecked control of Congress and the White House. The most poignant, and maybe most representative, response to the question of what voters really want was this: "Guarantees,'' one said. And lots of Easter eggs?
They blame some of their negative feelings about the candidates on the media, and the biggest laugh of the afternoon came when Luntz asked the group to describe those of us in the news business. Along with the usual compliments - "biased," "liberal," "pushy" and "overbearing" - one woman said "enjoying their wealth,'' and the reporters watching the exercise from behind a two-way mirror guffawed so loudly that the focus group heard us, and had to laugh along.
But I have a few words for the chronically undecided, too: inconsistent, unrealistic and waiting for Santa Claus. One woman said her husband was earning twice what he used to, but resented paying more for gasoline under Obama. Yesterday I supported the president, another woman said, but today, no.
In many cases, they even seem to be fooling themselves about being undecided - a point Luntz made by laughingly taking on a man in the group who had many complaints about Obama and a slew of compliments for Romney, and yet insisted that he didn't know how he'd vote.
Luntz also called members of the focus group, sponsored by the University of Phoenix, a bunch of hypocrites: "Almost half of you didn't watch [Romney's nomination acceptance] speech and you're telling me you want more information?"
No wonder both campaigns are working harder to turn out the base than to win over this lot of flip-floppers.
When Luntz showed them a variety of campaign ads, they reacted most negatively to a Democratic ad that showed Republicans walking on people, literally. "Tacky,'' one woman said. Most effective was a Republican ad that showed Obama using many of the same lines in '08 and '12, as though he learned nothing in the interim.
Luntz pointed to the group's preference for kinder, gentler commercials as proof that his fellow Republicans should knock off the ads with scary music. But again, no wonder both parties are running more turn-out-the-base pitches, especially given that fewer than one in 10 voters are still up for grabs, even if at a certain point, the negative ads do cancel each other out.
At the end of the 21 / 2-hour exercise, 11 of the voters said they were still undecided, seven said they were going with Obama and nine with Romney.
One of the Obama supporters, Anita Furr, a former administrator in the computer software business, lost her job two years ago and considers herself retired at age 64, although not by choice. She doesn't blame Obama for her situation, though, and thinks "it would take Romney as long or longer, starting fresh."
That "why change horses mid-stream?" argument is one that George W. Bush supporters made often in 2004 - the year Democratic nominee John F. Kerry did, as Luntz says, convince voters that Bush hadn't earned reelection, but never convinced them that he should be the alternative.
Romney also has not done that, just as Obama has not proved that he deserves another four-year contract with the American people. But I don't see the president ever satisfying these swing voters. Nor, thank goodness, will he tell them what they want to hear this week by confessing that he hasn't measured up and promising to do better.
hennebergerm@washpost.com
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political reporter and anchors the newspaper's She the People blog. Follow her on Twitter: @MelindaDC.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1028 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
September 5, 2012 Wednesday 7:00 PM EST
What moving Obama's speech inside means - and what it doesn't;
President Obama's convention acceptance speech won't be in a football stadium. So what?
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
LENGTH: 717 words
CHARLOTTE The big news out of the Queen City this morning is that Thursday night's acceptance speech by President Obama has been moved from the massive Bank of America football stadium to the more cozy Time Warner Cable Center because of weather concerns in the area.
"We have been monitoring weather forecasts closely and several reports predict thunderstorms in the area, therefore we have decided to move Thursdays proceedings to Time Warner Cable Arena to ensure the safety and security of our delegates and convention guests, said Steve Kerrigan, CEO of the convention in a statement released Wednesday morning.
Charlotte meteorologist Brad Panovich disagreed,insisting that the threat of severe thunderstorms was quite low. And Republicans quickly seized on the news to insist that the move was driven less by weather concerns than worries that Obama would be unable to fill the massive stadium where the Charlotte Panthers play. Democrats retorted that 65,000 people had tickets to attend the event (the stadium's capacity is more than 73,000) and noted that the unpredictable weather in Charlotte this week the Fix did get soaked in an absolute downpour Tuesday night made it a risk not worth taking.
Divining why Democrats moved the speech inside is absolutely impossible and, in some ways, beside the point. Regardless of why the decision was made, that Obama will accept his party's nomination in a smallish indoor arena rather than a sprawling outside stadium will have some (limited) impact on the optics of the evening.
First, some history. Remember that Obama broke with tradition in 2008 to give his acceptance speech not in the hall where all of the other speeches were delivered but instead at Invesco field inDenver.
The strategy behind that move was simple. Obama's candidacy in 2008 was as much cause as campaign a rare bit of organic passion and emotion in a political world largely devoid of it. It felt big and different to many people, and by staging the speech in front of 84,000 people at a football stadium, the Obama campaign effectively symbolized that feeling for lots of people both in the seats and watching at home. It was a break from the past, a literal change in the way conventions work.
Fast forward four years. Obama the president has struggled far more than Obama the candidate to sell his vision to the country. The lingering economic doldrums have weighed on his political prospects. The entire Republican campaign against him is centered around the idea that what Obama promised and what he delivered were not even close to one another. That rather than being a genuine change agent, he wound up being more of the same.
"If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldnt you feel that way now that hes President Obama?" former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney asked during his own acceptance speech in Tampa last week. "You know theres something wrong with the kind of job hes done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him."
Moving the convention inside will give Republicans even more fodder to make that argument. That the man who spoke to 80-plus thousand people four years ago is speaking to less than 20,000 in 2012 is a talking point too delicious to resist.
That said, it's easy to put too much meaning in the move. The truth of the matter is that the crowd in the arena will go absolutely bonkers for President Obama, and that reaction in such a small space will be a nice image for the campaign. (Think of playing a basketball game in Cameron Indoor Stadium versus one at, say, the Georgia Dome.)
"The noise in the room and response to the speech are what people are going to be talking about on Friday," said one senior Obama adviser. "And it would have been far, far worse had we been forced to evacuate Bank of America stadium during a thunderstorm."
Like most things that happen at a convention, moving the acceptance speech inside is almost certain to be over-analyzed. (And yes, we realize the irony of writing that in a blog post analyzing the decision.)What will ultimately matter is the speech Obama gives, not where he gives it.
While 2012 won't have the bigness of 2008 from a visual perspective, if Obama delivers the same sort of speech he did in 2008, where he's doing it from won't matter at all.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1029 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
She the People
September 5, 2012 Wednesday 5:48 PM EST
Swing this: Undecideds are so conflicted, no wonder parties are pitching to the base;
No wonder both campaigns are working harder to turn out the base than to win over this lot of flip-floppers.
BYLINE: Melinda Henneberger
LENGTH: 802 words
CHARLOTTE, N.C.- Swing voters under the microscope in a focus group here this week were asked to supply a single word or phrase that sums up how they see Barack Obama.And although 24 of the 27 North Carolinians in the room voted for Obama four years ago, here's what they came up with: "Machine-like," "appeaser," "incompetent," "uncertain," "salesman" and "arrogant." There were only a few less-searing assessments, including "multi-tasking," and "negotiator to no avail." Just two of the 27 told GOP message-tester Frank Luntz that Obama has succeeded in his first term. So, should the word that sums up our Democratic president's chances here in North Carolina, where he narrowly won in 2008, be "un-bloomin'-likely"?
You'd think so. Unless, that is, you heard what words these voters associate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney: "Elitist," "silver spoon," "unaware," "rich," "spoiled," and "self-serving." Romney did draw a few sunnier responses: Several people went with the phrase "business savvy," one said "decent," and another "likeable." Not mentioned once: "Mormon."
These undecided voters were not only unsold on either candidate, but were evenly divided on whether their dream POTUS would be a bipartisan conciliator or a tough guy. They don't want gridlock, but don't want either party in unchecked control of the Congress and White House, either. The most poignant, and maybe most representative, response to the question of what voters really want was this: "Guarantees,'' one said. And lots of Easter eggs?
They blame some of their negative feelings about the candidates on the media, and the biggest laugh of the afternoon came when Luntz asked the group to describe those of us in the news business. Along with the usual compliments - "biased," "liberal," "pushy" and "overbearing" - one woman said "enjoying their wealth,'' and the reporters watching the exercise from behind a two-way mirror guffawed so loudly that the focus group heard us, and had to laugh along.
But I have a few words for the chronically undecided, too: inconsistent, unrealistic, and waiting for Santa Claus. One woman said her husband was making twice what he used to, but resented paying more for gasoline under Obama. Yesterday I supported the president, another woman said, but today, no.
In many cases, they even seem to be fooling themselves about being undecided - a point Luntz made by laughingly taking on a man in the group who had many complaints about Obama , a slew of compliments for Romney, yet insisted that he didn't know how he'd vote in the end.
Luntz also called members of the focus group, sponsored by the University of Phoenix, a bunch of hypocrites: "Almost half of you didn't watch [Romney's Tampa acceptance] speech and you're telling me you want more information?"
No wonder both campaigns are working harder to turn out the base than to win over this lot of flip-floppers.
When Luntz showed them a variety of campaign ads, they reacted most negatively to a Democratic ad that showed Republicans walking on people, literally. "Tacky,'' one woman said. Most effective was a Republican ad that showed Obama using many of the same lines in '08 and '12, as if he'd learned nothing in the interim.
Luntz pointed to the group's preference for kinder, gentler commercials as proof his fellow Republicans should knock off the ads with scary music. But again, no wonder both parties are running more turn-out-the-base pitches, especially given that fewer than 1 in 10 voters are still up for grabs, even if at a certain point, the negative ads do cancel each other out.
At the end of the 21 / 2-hour exercise, 11 of the voters said they were still undecided, seven said they were going with Obama and nine with Romney.
One of the Obama supporters, Anita Furr, a former administrator in the computer software business, lost her job two years ago and considers herself retired at age 64, although not by choice. She doesn't blame Obama for her situation, though, and thinks "it will take Romney as long or longer, starting fresh."
That "why change horses mid-stream?" argument is one George W. Bush supporters made often in '04 -- the year Democratic nominee John Kerry did, as Luntz says, convince voters that Bush hadn't earned re-election, but never did convince them he should be the alternative.
Mitt Romney has yet to do that, too, just as Obama has yet to prove he deserves another four-year contract with the American people. But I don't see the president ever satisfying these swing voters. Nor, thank goodness, will he tell them what they want to hear this week by confessing he hasn't measured up and promising to do better.
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political writer and anchors the paper's 'She the People' blog. Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1030 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
September 5, 2012 Wednesday 4:35 PM EST
Michelle Obama: The antidote to 'you didn't build that';
Why the First Lady is more valuable as an economic messenger than a character witness.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 888 words
It's a tired old cliche by now: a male politician's wife is his best character witness.
But Barack Obama doesn't need a new dose of likeability right now; he needs an economic messenger.And in between platitudes about what a great man and great father he is, Michelle Obama was just that on Tuesday.
The First Lady, in her primetime address on the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., offered perhaps the clearest counterargument to date to Republican attacks on President Obama's "you didn't build that" comment.
Michelle Obama recapped the American Dream experienced by both her and her husband's families, emphasizing individual initiative in a way that the Obama campaign hasn't been able to in recent weeks.
"Like so many American families, our families werent asking for much," she said. "They didnt begrudge anyone elses success or care that others had much more than they did. In fact, they admired it."
The words here are no accident; they are a direct retort to the GOP's argument that Obama and the Democrats are running a campaign pitting the middle class against successful Americans like Mitt Romney.
At the same time, Michelle Obama emphasized that money isn't the be-all, end-all, and that her husband, for instance, took a lower-paying job in community organizing rather than a high-paying job at a big firm out of law school.
"Because for Barack, success isnt about how much money you make, its about the difference you make in peoples lives," she said.
None of this is new; Obama's life story and humble roots are all well-worn territory. But in a campaign in which Republicans insist they are getting traction by using lines like "you didn't build that" against Obama, it's been a little absent.
For Democrats, the prevailing narrative in the campaign is trending dangerously toward them embracing big government and shunning the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps American ideal.
Recent Washington Post-ABC News polling shows many Americans see the president as a big-government guy, and significantly more see that as a negative rather than a positive.
But Michelle Obama argued that a government's role and individual initiative don't have to be at odds with each other. And that's a message that has been missing in recent weeks.
The more the Obama campaign can drive this point home, the more it can mitigate whatever damage has been caused by "you didn't build that."
And as a First Lady with a significantly better image than her husband - recent polling shows about two-thirds of Americans view her favorably - she can drive that point home arguably better than just about anybody else.
GOP Senate candidate Mourdock launches 'better off' ad: The GOP's focus on the "are you better off" question is making its way into Republican campaign ads.
Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who finds himself in a closer-than-expected race with Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) in a conservative state, is debuting a new ad that attacks Donnelly and Obama on that question.
"Its tough to find anyone better off now than they were four years ago," Mourdock says directly to the camera. "Washington politicians like President Obama and Congressman Donnelly had their chance, but theyve only made things worse."
The ad will begin running on statewide broadcast TV starting this evening.
Democrats launch Ryan-Medicare ad: Not to be outdone, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is going up with an independent expenditure ad that promises to be mimicked in the coming weeks.
The ad hits freshman Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) for voting in favor of GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget and its plan to partially turn Medicare into a voucher program.
"Chris Gibson said he was different. When Chris Gibson joined the Republican crowd in Congress and voted to essentially end Medicare, Chris Gibson voted for Paul Ryan's budget that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry," the narrator says.
The ad buy is $341,000, according to the DCCC.
Fixbits:
Cory Booker redeems himself with a rousing speech - when basically nobody was watching.
One of the better-received moments of the night: A tribute to Ted Kennedy featuring footage of his 1994 debate with Romney.
Top former Clinton aide Doug Band says he's voting Obama, despite a New Yorker report that he's told friends he's voting for Romney.
The new Democratic Party platform includes significant scaling back of its pro-Israel language. Also, the word "God" no longer appears in it.
Former Virginia congressman Virgil Goode (R) has made the ballot in that state running on the Constitution Party line - a potential blow to Romney.
Must-reads:
"Democratic Party platform: An uneven progression over the years" - Marc Fisher, Washington Post
"Welcome to the MSNBC, Er, Democratic Convention" - Ashley Parker and Michael Barbaro, New York Times
"Paul Ryan rebuts claims he made misleading statements in convention speech" - Jerry Markon and Felicia Sonmez, Washington Post
"Siemens plant in Charlotte offers lessons as Obama, Romney talk job creation" - Lori Montgomery, Washington Post
"What is Obama's second-term plan?" - Dan Balz, Washington Post
"Latino vote not set in stone for Obama" - Hector Becerra, Los Angeles Times
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1031 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 5, 2012 Wednesday
Regional Edition
In N.C., undecideds are tough crowd
BYLINE: Melinda Henneberger
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 803 words
DATELINE: CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE - Swing voters under the microscope in a focus group here this week were asked to supply a single word or phrase that sums up how they view President Obama.
And although 24 of the 27 North Carolinians in the room voted for Obama four years ago, here's what they came up with: "Machine-like," "appeaser," "incompetent," "uncertain," "salesman" and "arrogant." There were only a few less-searing assessments, including "multi-tasking," and "negotiator to no avail." Just two of the 27 told GOP message-tester Frank Luntz that Obama has succeeded in his first term. So, should the word that sums up our Democratic president's chances here in North Carolina, where he narrowly won in 2008, be "un-bloomin'-likely"?
You'd think so. Unless, that is, you heard what words these voters associate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney: "Elitist," "silver spoon," "unaware," "rich," "spoiled," and "self-serving." Romney did draw a few sunnier responses: Several people went with the phrase "business savvy," one said "decent," and another "likeable." Not mentioned once: "Mormon."
These undecided voters were not only unsold on either candidate, but were evenly divided on whether their dream POTUS would be a bipartisan conciliator or a tough guy. They don't want gridlock, but also don't want either party in unchecked control of Congress and the White House. The most poignant, and maybe most representative, response to the question of what voters really want was this: "Guarantees,'' one said. And lots of Easter eggs?
They blame some of their negative feelings about the candidates on the media, and the biggest laugh of the afternoon came when Luntz asked the group to describe those of us in the news business. Along with the usual compliments - "biased," "liberal," "pushy" and "overbearing" - one woman said "enjoying their wealth,'' and the reporters watching the exercise from behind a two-way mirror guffawed so loudly that the focus group heard us, and had to laugh along.
But I have a few words for the chronically undecided, too: inconsistent, unrealistic and waiting for Santa Claus. One woman said her husband was earning twice what he used to, but resented paying more for gasoline under Obama. Yesterday I supported the president, another woman said, but today, no.
In many cases, they even seem to be fooling themselves about being undecided - a point Luntz made by laughingly taking on a man in the group who had many complaints about Obama and a slew of compliments for Romney, and yet insisted that he didn't know how he'd vote.
Luntz also called members of the focus group, sponsored by the University of Phoenix, a bunch of hypocrites: "Almost half of you didn't watch [Romney's nomination acceptance] speech and you're telling me you want more information?"
No wonder both campaigns are working harder to turn out the base than to win over this lot of flip-floppers.
When Luntz showed them a variety of campaign ads, they reacted most negatively to a Democratic ad that showed Republicans walking on people, literally. "Tacky,'' one woman said. Most effective was a Republican ad that showed Obama using many of the same lines in '08 and '12, as though he learned nothing in the interim.
Luntz pointed to the group's preference for kinder, gentler commercials as proof that his fellow Republicans should knock off the ads with scary music. But again, no wonder both parties are running more turn-out-the-base pitches, especially given that fewer than one in 10 voters are still up for grabs, even if at a certain point, the negative ads do cancel each other out.
At the end of the 21 / 2-hour exercise, 11 of the voters said they were still undecided, seven said they were going with Obama and nine with Romney.
One of the Obama supporters, Anita Furr, a former administrator in the computer software business, lost her job two years ago and considers herself retired at age 64, although not by choice. She doesn't blame Obama for her situation, though, and thinks "it would take Romney as long or longer, starting fresh."
That "why change horses mid-stream?" argument is one that George W. Bush supporters made often in 2004 - the year Democratic nominee John F. Kerry did, as Luntz says, convince voters that Bush hadn't earned reelection, but never convinced them that he should be the alternative.
Romney also has not done that, just as Obama has not proved that he deserves another four-year contract with the American people. But I don't see the president ever satisfying these swing voters. Nor, thank goodness, will he tell them what they want to hear this week by confessing that he hasn't measured up and promising to do better.
hennebergerm@washpost.com
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political reporter and anchors the newspaper's She the People blog. Follow her on Twitter: @MelindaDC.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1032 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 5, 2012 Wednesday
Every Edition
The media feasts in Charlotte
BYLINE: Dana Milbank
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 812 words
DATELINE: CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE
TheDemocratic National Conventionis just getting underway, but already I've been given the treatment. Lots of treatments, actually.
I've had my deltoids massaged in candlelight by a licensed therapist; had a foaming pore cleanser and mask applied to my face by an aesthetician; been instructed in the Warrior, Half-Sun Salute and Dancer poses by a yoga instructor; and crawled into a hanging cocoon for a "meditative snooze." I worked up quite an appetite doing all this, so I ordered vegan corn chowder and gluten-free chicken chile verde washed down with Fiji water - all courtesy of the Huffington Post.
Ostensibly, the Huffington Post Oasis offers these spa services gratis to convention delegates as well as to media types. But in practice, said Brendan McDonald, whose Lyfe Kitchen serves the Oasis's healthy fare, "I've only seen the likes of you."
Do not be deceived by all that talk of delegates and floor speeches: This is a convention of the media, by the media and for the media. There are some 15,000 representatives of the media here for the convention, and only about 5,000 delegates. This mathematical imbalance means most journalists spend their time with other journalists at events sponsored by corporations and hosted by media organizations for the purpose of entertaining advertisers and promoting themselves to each other.
There's the Politico Hub (Ketel One Martini bar!), the Bloomberg Link (hot breakfast and goodie bags!), the CNN Grill, the MSNBC Experience and many more. The Atlantic, National Journal and CBS started offering mimosas at 9:30 a.m., and the Hill had a full bar open at 10:30 a.m. in its hospitality suite atop the Charlotte City Club. I attended these events for five hours straight on Tuesday and could not identify a single delegate.
Last week's storm-shortened Republican convention in Tampa, visited by a similar media mob, produced no bounce in the polls for Mitt Romney. The situation in Charlotte - thousands of idle journalists and not a serious news story in sight - is one more reason to consign political conventions to the dustbin of history.
My Tuesday began at the Politico Hub, where Mike Allen was interviewing President Obama's confidant Valerie Jarrett.
"He's a human being and he likes to laugh," Jarrett disclosed.
Allen asked if it's true that "they're incredible parents."
"They're absolutely amazing," Jarrett confirmed.
"The young ladies have turned out to be remarkably normal, right?"
"They are very normal."
The dozens of reporters in the crowd, NBC's Mike Isikoff and the Daily Beast's Lloyd Grove among them, munched on scones and fruit (sponsor: Bank of America). Nearby were other pieces of the Hub to be used later in the day: a bar (sponsored by BAE Systems and others) and a Coca-Cola "Refresh Station."
An hour later, the Bloomberg Link held its breakfast event - also featuring Jarrett. Attendees, including Time's Mark Halperin, BuzzFeed's Ben Smith and three from The Post editorial page, got purple Bloomberg beachbags containing sunglasses and water bottles. The Bloomberg hosts were pleased with their glitzy digs, two floors above the plaza with MSNBC's set. "It's like spring break out there, and this is like the cool party everybody wants to get into," one Bloomberg guy explained to a guest.
In the plaza, a whiteboard listed MSNBC's scheduled festivities, including a pizza party at noon, "Rev. Al's Blueberry Pie Cafe" at 6 p.m., and viewing parties throughout the day. This was much like the offering at the nearby CNN Grill, which sent out daily updates with the political and media stars "sighted" at the grill, including Charlie Rose, Dave Barry, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper.
From there, I hurried to the National Journal-CBS Breakfast (sponsors include United Technologies, Volkswagen and Pfizer), which featured Obama pollster Joel Benenson informing a roomful of journalists that the president's crowds have been getting bigger.
There was little time to process this wisdom, because I was late for a breakfast done by the Hill (sponsors include Tyco, Allstate and lobbying firm Holland and Knight), where Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) announced that Obama's advisers have been "astonishingly successful." By then I was behind for the Yahoo-ABC News event, so I missed Obama campaign manager Jim Messina telling the roomful of reporters that "the president is building an economy built to last."
There were a dozen media events to go, including Asian-fusion food at Politico, Politics and Pints trivia with The Post's Chris Cillizza, and a RealClearPolitics party. But if I went to the late-night BuzzFeed party at a children's museum, I wondered, could I still make it to Wednesday's breakfast sponsored by Bloomberg and The Post?
Possibly - but I'd need a nap at the Huffington Post.
danamilbank@washpost.com
For a video version of this column, visit washingtonpost.com/video.
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1033 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 5, 2012 Wednesday
Regional Edition
Obama would move 'forward,' but then what?
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 2263 words
DATELINE: CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE - There is always one big question at the opening of a political convention, different for each time and place, but something that consumes most of the discussion. In Tampa, it was whether Mitt Romney could warm up his image. In Charlotte, it is whether President Obama will outline a second-term agenda with any more clarity than he has done.
The theme of Obama's campaign is "forward," chosen to convey the impression that the country is moving in the right direction. A majority of Americans think otherwise. There is a strong quotient of policy status quo in what Obama has talked about. He has suggested that the policies he has pursued are working and that, given time, they will lay the foundation for a strong recovery in the future.
He has never really acknowledged that he made mistakes - other than saying he didn't do an adequate job of talking about his accomplishments. Nor has he explained very well why his policies haven't wrenched the economy out of its current state any faster, other than to remind people of the severity of the recession he inherited and the domestic and global uncertainty that has kept growth low and the unemployment rate high.
Not that there are easy answers to a way out of this economic situation. Romney's agenda is a combination of old Republican orthodoxy - tax cuts for all that would give the wealthy another big reduction - with an embrace of running mate Paul Ryan's budget blueprint of spending cuts and entitlement changes. Romney passed up an opportunity at the Republican convention to talk in anything other than generalities about what he would do.
The president has spent a year framing the choice as one of going forward or going back. He began that process last fall, then started his campaign with so-called framing speeches in Ohio and Virginia. A month later, he felt the need to give another (which drew generally weak reviews). He has talked about the issue all summer, and his campaign is running two commercials, one with him and another featuring Bill Clinton, that do the same thing.
That message is more negative than positive, a way for Obama to cast Romney and the GOP as pursuing a backward-looking agenda that would reward the rich at the expense of the middle class, free banks and corporations from regulations, put safety-net programs at risk, and take money away from education and vital domestic programs. Those points will be reinforced by many speakers this week.
Romney's nomination acceptance speech in Tampa was largely devoid of ideology or big choices. He spent more time trying to give people permission to abandon Obama than to sell an agenda that could mean pain for many. Nor did he fill in the blanks of a tax plan that has described the goodies - across-the-board tax cuts - but not the deductions he would have to eliminate to make his numbers add up.
Will Obama do any better when he addresses the Democratic convention Thursday night? His advisers offer an unqualified yes, without details. At a breakfast with reporters hosted by Bloomberg News on Tuesday, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Obama will outline a second-term agenda. "A big difference between what Romney did and what the president will do Thursday night is that he will actually lay out a tangible plan going forward with concrete, achievable things that we can do" to rebuild the economy, she said.
Cutter cited energy, which Romney talked about last week in Tampa. Obama's approach has always favored a more significant commitment to alternative energy investment, Romney's to domestic exploration and production. Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a key long-term initiative that every president, dating back decades, sought but didn't achieve.
Cutter mentioned deficit reduction and said the president has laid out a clear plan. That plan has gone nowhere. Since the debt ceiling negotiations collapsed in the summer of 2011,the president and congressional Republicans have made no serious effort to engage with one another on the deficit. There are informal talks underway on Capitol Hill, but no direct presidential leadership. Obama has been reluctant to embrace credible plans already out there (read: Simpson-Bowles) on the belief that Republicans would unite against it. But if he is as serious about this issue as he and his advisers claim, Thursday's speech provides a moment to show it.
The so-called fiscal cliff - across-the-board-cuts in defense and domestic programs mandated by sequestration and the expiration of George W. Bush-era tax cuts - looms immediately after the election. Inaction could plunge the economy back into recession. Neither Obama nor Romney has addressed this forthrightly in the campaign, although Obama has said he will not extend the reductions for the wealthiest Americans.
Administration officials have been asked repeatedly how the president's second-term priorities might differ from those of his first term. One thing they've cited is immigration reform - a campaign pledge from 2008 that has remained unfulfilled. Obama had other fires to fight when he came into office, and he put health care ahead of all other elective initiatives. But he had big Democratic majorities the first two years of his presidency and still didn't push the issue.
Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville issued a Democracy Corps memo Tuesday that outlined the challenge for Obama. The weak economy, they said, leaves him highly vulnerable. Talking about the past may not do enough to win over voters who might be prepared to vote for him but aren't confident that he has a plan for the next four years.
"We think the country is desperate to know where the president wants to take the country - his vision and plan in the face of weak recovery but more important, the long-term problems facing the country," they wrote.
The more he does that, the smaller Romney's agenda will look, they argued. Framing the choice by talking about how much worse things might be if Romney had been or does become president isn't enough. "While it is right to draw the contrast with Romney," they wrote, "voters really are hungry to know the plan for success."
Convention speeches are not usually the time for laundry lists or bullet points. They are not a State of the Union address or a budget submission. But Romney gave the president a significant opening with his convention speech last week. Obama can seize the future in a way Romney did not. But that will require him to do far more than he has done in this campaign.
balzd@washpost.com
For more Dan Balz columns, go to postpolitics.com.
CHARLOTTE - There is always one big question at the opening of a political convention, different for each time and place, but something that consumes most of the discussion. In Tampa, it was whether Mitt Romney could warm up his image. In Charlotte, it is whether President Obama will outline a second-term agenda with any more clarity than he has done.
The theme of Obama's campaign is "forward," chosen to convey the impression that the country is moving in the right direction. A majority of Americans think otherwise. There is a strong quotient of policy status quo in what Obama has talked about. He has suggested that the policies he has pursued are working and that, given time, they will lay the foundation for a strong recovery in the future.
He has never really acknowledged that he made mistakes - other than saying he didn't do an adequate job of talking about his accomplishments. Nor has he explained very well why his policies haven't wrenched the economy out of its current state any faster, other than to remind people of the severity of the recession he inherited and the domestic and global uncertainty that has kept growth low and the unemployment rate high.
Not that there are easy answers to a way out of this economic situation. Romney's agenda is a combination of old Republican orthodoxy - tax cuts for all that would give the wealthy another big reduction - with an embrace of running mate Paul Ryan's budget blueprint of spending cuts and entitlement changes. Romney passed up an opportunity at the Republican convention to talk in anything other than generalities about what he would do.
The president has spent a year framing the choice as one of going forward or going back. He began that process last fall, then started his campaign with so-called framing speeches in Ohio and Virginia. A month later, he felt the need to give another (which drew generally weak reviews). He has talked about the issue all summer, and his campaign is running two commercials, one with him and another featuring Bill Clinton, that do the same thing.
That message is more negative than positive, a way for Obama to cast Romney and the GOP as pursuing a backward-looking agenda that would reward the rich at the expense of the middle class, free banks and corporations from regulations, put safety-net programs at risk, and take money away from education and vital domestic programs. Those points will be reinforced by many speakers this week.
Romney's nomination acceptance speech in Tampa was largely devoid of ideology or big choices. He spent more time trying to give people permission to abandon Obama than to sell an agenda that could mean pain for many. Nor did he fill in the blanks of a tax plan that has described the goodies - across-the-board tax cuts - but not the deductions he would have to eliminate to make his numbers add up.
Will Obama do any better when he addresses the Democratic convention Thursday night? His advisers offer an unqualified yes, without details. At a breakfast with reporters hosted by Bloomberg News on Tuesday, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Obama will outline a second-term agenda. "A big difference between what Romney did and what the president will do Thursday night is that he will actually lay out a tangible plan going forward with concrete, achievable things that we can do" to rebuild the economy, she said.
Cutter cited energy, which Romney talked about last week in Tampa. Obama's approach has always favored a more significant commitment to alternative energy investment, Romney's to domestic exploration and production. Reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a key long-term initiative that every president, dating back decades, sought but didn't achieve.
Cutter mentioned deficit reduction and said the president has laid out a clear plan. That plan has gone nowhere. Since the debt ceiling negotiations collapsed in the summer of 2011,the president and congressional Republicans have made no serious effort to engage with one another on the deficit. There are informal talks underway on Capitol Hill, but no direct presidential leadership. Obama has been reluctant to embrace credible plans already out there (read: Simpson-Bowles) on the belief that Republicans would unite against it. But if he is as serious about this issue as he and his advisers claim, Thursday's speech provides a moment to show it.
The so-called fiscal cliff - across-the-board-cuts in defense and domestic programs mandated by sequestration and the expiration of George W. Bush-era tax cuts - looms immediately after the election. Inaction could plunge the economy back into recession. Neither Obama nor Romney has addressed this forthrightly in the campaign, although Obama has said he will not extend the reductions for the wealthiest Americans.
Administration officials have been asked repeatedly how the president's second-term priorities might differ from those of his first term. One thing they've cited is immigration reform - a campaign pledge from 2008 that has remained unfulfilled. Obama had other fires to fight when he came into office, and he put health care ahead of all other elective initiatives. But he had big Democratic majorities the first two years of his presidency and still didn't push the issue.
Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville issued a Democracy Corps memo Tuesday that outlined the challenge for Obama. The weak economy, they said, leaves him highly vulnerable. Talking about the past may not do enough to win over voters who might be prepared to vote for him but aren't confident that he has a plan for the next four years.
"We think the country is desperate to know where the president wants to take the country - his vision and plan in the face of weak recovery but more important, the long-term problems facing the country," they wrote.
The more he does that, the smaller Romney's agenda will look, they argued. Framing the choice by talking about how much worse things might be if Romney had been or does become president isn't enough. "While it is right to draw the contrast with Romney," they wrote, "voters really are hungry to know the plan for success."
Convention speeches are not usually the time for laundry lists or bullet points. They are not a State of the Union address or a budget submission. But Romney gave the president a significant opening with his convention speech last week. Obama can seize the future in a way Romney did not. But that will require him to do far more than he has done in this campaign.
balzd@washpost.com
For more Dan Balz columns, go to postpolitics.com.
Name Blurb Flag true Variable Size Panel Image Panel Image Background Image
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1034 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Democrats Say U.S. Is Better Off Than 4 Years Ago
BYLINE: By JIM RUTENBERG; Jackie Calmes contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1385 words
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A day after fumbling a predictable and straightforward question posed by Mitt Romney last week -- are Americans better off than they were four years ago -- the Obama campaign provided a response on Monday that it said would be hammered home during the Democratic convention here this week: ''Absolutely.''
The focus on the campaign's handling of the question, after halting and contradictory responses from Democrats on Sunday, complicated the White House's effort to begin striking a set of themes the president intends to highlight here and carry through the general election.
That effort starts with an argument that Mr. Romney, the Republican nominee, would raise taxes on the middle class while cutting them for the wealthy. It seeks to pitch forward to the next four years the case that Mr. Obama and his allies have made over the spring and summer -- that Mr. Romney's business career showed him intent on profit even at the expense of workers and that his wealth has given him tax advantages not enjoyed by regular people.
''The problem is everybody's already seen his economic playbook,'' Mr. Obama said at a campaign stop in Ohio before a Labor Day audience largely consisting of United Auto Workers union members. ''On first down he hikes taxes by nearly $2,000 on the average family with kids in order to pay for a massive tax cut for multimillionaires.''
The Obama campaign began running a new commercial making the same point, and asserting, ''The middle class is carrying a heavy load in America, but Romney doesn't see it.''
As delegates streamed in for the opening of the convention on Tuesday, Mr. Obama and his team were putting the finishing touches on a program that requires a different kind of political daring from the one they showed four years ago, when Mr. Obama gave his speech in a stadium on a stage compared by some to a Greek temple.
This week Mr. Obama is planning to undertake a tricky two-step of convincing wavering supporters being aggressively courted by Mr. Romney that they made the right decision in choosing him four years ago and that he has the country on its way to a sustainable recovery even if they do not always feel it. He will make the argument in an outdoor stadium again, on Thursday night under the threat of rain, but aides say there will be no Greek columns.
Obama campaign aides indicated they were moving into a new phase, applying their case that Mr. Romney has no history of looking out for the middle class to the question of what the next four years would look like under a Romney presidency.
But Republicans showed that they were not going to give Mr. Obama a free ride this week, with Mr. Romney's running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, coming to North Carolina to keep the focus on the last four years.
''The president can say a lot of things, and he will, but he can't tell you that you're better off,'' Mr. Ryan said on Monday at a rally in Greenville, N.C. ''Simply put, the Jimmy Carter years look like the good old days compared to where we are right now.''
Mr. Obama's aides initially appeared to stumble when television interviewers asked them to respond to Mr. Romney's charge in his nomination acceptance speech Thursday night that Americans were not better off under Mr. Obama.
On Fox News Channel, Mr. Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, said, ''We're in a better position than we were four years ago in our economy.'' But Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland, a Democrat, answered ''no'' on CBS's ''Face the Nation,'' though he blamed Republicans. Other aides equivocated.
Mr. O'Malley provided another answer on Monday on CNN: ''We are clearly better off as a country because we're creating jobs rather than losing them. We have not recovered all that we lost in the Bush recession. That's why we need to continue to move forward.''
In fact, on Monday the campaign settled on a definitive answer of, as the deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter put it, ''Absolutely.''
Followed down a hallway by a local news crew asking the ''better off'' question in the convention center here, Ms. Cutter described the economic scene four years ago -- the auto companies teetering near bankruptcy, bank failures -- and said, ''Does anyone want to go back to 2008? I don't think so.''
Speaking in Detroit on Monday, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said during a union rally, ''You want to know whether we're better off?'' He answered: ''I've got a little bumper sticker for you: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.''
Aides said that over the next three days they would show video testimonials of people who have been helped by Mr. Obama's policies, hammering home the success of his auto bailout and the benefits of his health care overhaul.
''We're not running from our record, which we're proud of,'' Mr. Axelrod said in an interview.
But, he added, ''We're also going to burnish the choice -- it's fair to say there will be more discussion of their ideas at our convention than there was at theirs.''
While Democrats pointed to polls showing that Mr. Romney appeared to get little polling ''bounce'' out of his convention, some Democratic strategists here conceded that Republicans had succeeded in muddying the waters on a traditional Democratic strong point, Medicare.
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan support a plan that would change the program into one in which beneficiaries would get a fixed amount of money from the government each year to use to purchase private health insurance or traditional Medicare, a shift that Democrats say would leave the elderly vulnerable to rising health care costs. Many Democrats had assumed the issue would be a major political help to them, but some Democratic strategists said Republican claims that Mr. Obama had cut $716 billion from the program had at least partly neutralized the Democratic advantage and constrained their ability to emphasize Medicare in their campaign message.
In a brief interview, the minority leader in the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, seemed to acknowledge as much when she said of Republicans, ''Confusion is the name of their game,'' though she added that the Democrats could regain the advantage. ''We don't agonize over that, so we're organized to make sure the truth is known by the public.''
Democrats here expressed relief that Mr. Obama took some potentially contentious issues out of the intraparty debate here -- supporting gay marriage, ending the military policy known as ''don't ask, don't tell,'' and easing the threat of deportation for many young immigrants in the country illegally -- and those were expected to be highlighted here, as well.
Produced by the same team that put on Mr. Obama's last convention -- the strategists Jim Margolis and Erik Smith -- the program this week will include a video version of Mr. Obama's logo, now overlaid with silhouettes of people, which loomed over the empty Time Warner Cable Arena on Monday. The theme emblazoned on the hall is ''Americans Coming Together.''
In a nod to austerity, there will be no band, but, rather, a DJ -- more specifically, Deejay Cassidy, a favorite of the Obamas.
Where the main priority for Mr. Obama's team four years ago was to prove he could be president, this year it is to show that he is connected to the middle class.
So, organizers said, the stages in the arena and the Bank of America Stadium, where Mr. Obama speaks Thursday night, will be smaller and ''intimate,'' allowing speakers ''to be surrounded by delegates,'' Theo LeCompte, the chief operations officer of the convention, said in a statement.
But this convention will be less about stagecraft than about the argument Mr. Obama will make to woo back straying supporters and recast his presidency in a light of accomplishment amid often gloomy monthly job reports. The next report is to come out Friday, less than 10 hours after Mr. Obama finishes speaking.
PHOTOS: Cardboard cutouts of President Obama and health care workers at the Democratic National Convention site in Charlotte, N.C. (PHOTOGRAPH BY TODD HEISLER/THE NEW YORK TIMES); Democrats at a speech for the Black Caucus on Monday, above, and signing up voters. The party plans to hammer home a theme that Americans are better off under Mr. Obama. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY TODD HEISLER/THE NEW YORK TIMES; STEPHEN CROWLEY/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A18)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/us/politics/democrats-say-us-is-better-off-than-4-years-ago.html
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1035 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Flood of Conservative Money Challenges Ohio Unions' Voter Drives
BYLINE: By MONICA DAVEY and STEVEN GREENHOUSE; Monica Davey reported from Columbus, and Steven Greenhouse from New York.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 1412 words
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- From a line of cubicles inside a union headquarters here, phone-bank volunteers hunched over laptop computers, improvising into their headsets their own versions of an anti-Mitt Romney script, which asserted that he had played a role in factories that closed, wages that dropped, workers who were fired.
''I know, I know -- it gets maddening sometimes with all the ads out there,'' Travis Long, a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers, replied to a disenchanted voter on the line, then pressed on with the script and waited for his computer to dial another home.
As unions around the nation plunge in earnest into another election season of phone banks, door-to-door canvasses and leafleting, they find themselves confronting a political landscape that is more daunting than any they have faced in decades.
Conservative ''super PACs,'' financed with unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy individuals, have saturated Ohio and other battleground states with ads against President Obama. Whether the labor movement and its vaunted ground game can counterbalance this flood of money and media is a question that few political observers can answer. But many believe that how this matchup plays out could determine who wins several crucial battleground states, including this one.
''It's clear now that the Republican super PACs are going to outspend Obama massively,'' said Joseph A. McCartin, a Georgetown University professor who has written extensively about unions' role in politics. ''That's where I think labor's true importance will be highlighted this time. Whether what labor can do is enough is yet to be seen.''
Labor leaders say unions will spend $400 million in this year's federal, state and local elections, about the same as in 2008. Predictions about spending by conservative groups -- including Americans for Prosperity, Restore Our Future and Karl Rove's American Crossroads -- suggest they may together spend at least $800 million on federal elections.
But precise comparisons are difficult. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, corporate PACs and corporate employees made $2 billion in political donations during the 2008 campaign, compared with $75 million from labor unions, based on Federal Election Commission filings. The union number does not include donations that union members make to individual candidates, and includes only a small fraction of what unions spend on politics, like amounts for campaign mailings to members and for political staff members who lobby Congress, state capitals and city halls.
The election commission's $2 billion figure for donations from corporate PACs and employees did not include the amount that business spends on lobbyists or business's political donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Some conservatives raise an eyebrow over unions' claims that they are outgunned in the money game. ''I look at them saying they're going to be outspent, and I say, I don't know, maybe that's the case, but it also sounds an awful lot to me like they're trying to manage expectations,'' said Seth Morgan, the Ohio director of policy for Americans for Prosperity. The group says it is opening seven offices in the state and has called more than one million Ohio voters. ''Think about it: they've got a built-in funding mechanism after all,'' Mr. Morgan said.
If labor cannot provide the counterpunch to the conservative super PACs, it is unclear whether anyone else can. Nationally, organized labor has long been viewed as having the most effective political operation for Democrats. President Obama's victory in 2008 here in Ohio -- no Republican in modern times has been able to capture the White House without winning the state -- was due in no small part to labor's get-out-the-vote push. People from union households represented 30 percent of all who voted in the state that election.
But over the past two years, unions have been diverting resources to a range of causes beyond presidential politics, including contract showdowns with companies like Caterpillar and legislative battles over a wave of state laws diminishing collective bargaining power. Still, union leaders argue that the battles over public employees' bargaining rights in Wisconsin and elsewhere brought new momentum and vigor to union activists, who pushed successfully to repeal a Republican-backed anti-bargaining law in Ohio in a statewide referendum last November.
''What we saw in the past two years in all these state battles across the country is members coming out of the woodwork to volunteer,'' said Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Moreover, the same Supreme Court decision that permitted unlimited donations to super PACs has also in ways benefited unions. The ruling in the Citizens United case and subsequent court rulings opened the door to unlimited corporate and union contributions to political committees and made it possible to pool that money with unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals. It also allowed unions to campaign beyond their membership for the first time -- to call and knock on the doors of nonunion households. As a result, unions boast that they will reach a far larger universe of voters than ever in 2012.
Here in Ohio, union leaders expect that a record number of volunteers, pressing for Mr. Obama and Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat and a favorite of labor, will call or knock on the doors of 2.3 million voters by Election Day, Nov. 6, double the number they reached in the last presidential race.
''The truth is we're never going to come remotely close to matching the money on the other side,'' said Jim Lowe, a senior organizer for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. ''But this allows us to reach a far wider audience.''
Labor is facing another problem: Many union members are frustrated with Mr. Obama's performance, having hoped he would do more to reduce unemployment, push for stimulus and infrastructure spending and stand up to Congressional Republicans.
Union leaders are urging disillusioned members to back Mr. Obama anyway, telling them that Mr. Romney will lavish tax cuts on the rich, weaken unions and do little to discourage outsourcing. They insist that no one can do as much as unions to block his strategy of running up a large majority among white working-class workers, which many political experts say he needs to win.
Ohio, which Mr. Obama won in 2008 by four percentage points, is seen as a major battlefield for the blue-collar vote. Jobs are on nearly everyone's minds here, even as growth in the energy and auto industries has helped reduce unemployment to 7.2 percent, below the nation's 8.3 percent rate. In July and August alone, forces on both sides of the presidential race spent $43 million on commercials in Ohio, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, with supporters of the Republicans outspending Democrats by $3 million.
Union organizers are building what they say will be a groundbreaking, high-tech update on their old-school methods of canvassing neighborhoods and calling people.
They plan ''tele-town halls,'' where union leaders will address thousands of people sitting in their living rooms. They have combined forces with nonlabor groups like MoveOn.org. And volunteers no longer need to go to a central phone bank to make calls; a labor-sponsored computer program lets them call from home and match Facebook friends to targeted lists of voters so that volunteers can reach out to them on social media.
In Ohio last week, though, Kim McDonald, a special education aide and union member, said she had taken part in a traditional canvass in Cleveland Heights and would do so again. ''Talking to someone about issues, face to face, should definitely help assuage the commercial onslaught,'' she said.
Ms. McDonald said she had 28 doors to knock on that day, and found just six people at home. In the end, she said, she thought she had swayed perhaps two voters.
PHOTOS: Brianna McKay, an Ohio Education Association representative, after giving out ''Educators for Obama'' shirts at a rally last week in Columbus. Labor helped Barack Obama win Ohio in 2008.; George Dunson, left, a public employees union retiree, and Diana Vernon, center, a volunteer from a union for school employees, looked last week into conveying a more bipartisan message.; A phone bank in Columbus. Unions hope to call or visit 2.3 million Ohio voters. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY ANDREW SPEAR FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A16)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/us/politics/ohio-unions-face-tough-battle-with-super-pacs.html
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1036 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
The Ad Campaign: Sparring Over the Middle Class
BYLINE: By JEREMY PETERS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; THE CAUCUS; Pg. 16
LENGTH: 256 words
As President Obama kicks off his convention week in Charlotte, N.C., his campaign has a new ad that doubles down on his charges that Mitt Romney's economic policies would harm the middle class.
"The middle class is carrying a heavy load in America," the commercial says as images of a forlorn-looking mother and a worker in a hard hat appear on the screen. "But Mitt Romney doesn't see it." A picture of Mr. Romney flashing a wide grin is shown, along with a picture of a stately brick mansion.
"So, Romney hits the middle class harder and gives millionaires and even bigger break. Is that the way forward for America?"
The ad repeats the claim -- made often by Mr. Obama and his allies -- that Mr. Romney's economic plans would result in a tax increase for middle-class families while lowering taxes on people in the highest income brackets. A study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found that to be the case.
The Romney campaign has sought to discredit that study, noting that its author served on the president's Council of Economic Advisers.
A Romney campaign spokeswoman sought to shift the focus toward the state of the economy since Mr. Obama took office, noting that "the middle class has been crushed under President Obama, but he doesn't seem to get it."
"Gas prices have doubled, incomes have dropped, poverty is headed toward 50-year highs and chronic unemployment is at unprecedented levels," said the spokeswoman, Amanda Henneberg.
This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.
DRAWING
URL: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/obama-ad-reprises-theme-that-romney-would-hurt-middle-class/
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1037 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
First Lady Strives for Caring Image Above Partisan Fray
BYLINE: By JODI KANTOR
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; Pg. 17
LENGTH: 1306 words
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- This is how Michelle Obama delivers a hug: The nearly six-foot-tall first lady envelops her target, her long arms often wrapping all the way around the recipient's back. She leans in close, unafraid to press her body against a stranger's. Working crowds with her husband, she sometimes falls behind him, because he is more of a hand-shaker or high-fiver, and in the second-to-second choreography of a rope line, the Michelle Obama hug takes time.
That hug, half motherly embrace and half papal benediction, has become a minor phenomenon. Many of the first lady's events end with marathon hugging sessions, because people now hope to get one. At the Olympics, the United States men's basketball team lined up for hugs, the sweaty giants waiting their turns like meek children. When Mrs. Obama gave the queen of England a mere half-hug, Britain went wild. The first lady delivers solemn, private hugs to wounded service members. And all summer she has hugged her way across the country on behalf of her husband's campaign, drawing volunteers, donors, staff and potential converts near.
''Sometimes her staff will roll their eyes, like O.K., here we go, because if there are 50 people who need to be hugged, she will hug them all,'' said Samantha Appleton, until recently a White House photographer.
Those hugs are a useful metaphor for how Michelle Obama approaches the roles of first lady and campaign surrogate. A Harvard-trained lawyer, trying to win votes and high approval ratings, she offers intimacy without revelation. Her signature gesture is striking but safe.
That approach will probably be on display Tuesday night when Mrs. Obama addresses the Democratic National Convention, giving a speech that advisers describe as an exercise in empathy and connection.
Behind the scenes, Mrs. Obama's advocacy for her husband can be so forceful that speechwriters have had to tone it down over the years for public presentation, aides say. But despite the scathing critiques of Republicans that she had been known to deliver in private, her advisers believe that she is most potent when she does not appear overtly political and that she comes across best as a gracious noncombatant in the red-and-blue wars. So at the convention, they say, she will try to present herself as a caring, wifely figure and appear above the partisan fray.
Just as she has on the campaign trail, Mrs. Obama is expected to describe her husband as a grounded, devoted man driven to build better lives for American children, implying he knows more about economic challenges than a wealthy son of fortune like Mitt Romney ever can.
''Your president is the son of a single mother who struggled to put herself through school and pay the bills,'' she said at an event in Iowa in August. ''I remind people that Barack knows what it means when a family struggles,'' she continued. ''And that's why I love him, and that's why I will have his back forever.''
In that speech, she did not breathe Mr. Romney's name. As she campaigned this summer, she barely used the word ''Republican.'' Instead she finishes her remarks -- and begins dispensing hugs.
Mrs. Obama has told advisers she uses the hugs to make herself less intimidating despite her position and height -- to ''narrow the gap,'' said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, her former press secretary. The hug is not a political tactic, aides say, but an expression of a desire to connect.
One of the first big White House hugfests was in 2009, at the kickoff event for a mentoring program Mrs. Obama started for high school girls in Washington. Few of them had ever been to the White House, let alone at a meeting with the first lady. ''She eliminated that panic and anxiety that the girls had by hugging them,'' Ms. Appleton said.
It is hard to remember another first lady who appeared as comfortable in her own body as does Mrs. Obama, who studied dance as a girl and later served on the board of an African dance company. She has shimmied, skipped, hopscotched, hula-hooped, jumping-jacked, and potato-sack-raced her way through her tenure as first lady, using not just her position but her body to push for more exercise and better nutrition for children. (She is fighting an obesity crisis and trying to convince corporations to change products and advertising, yet she sticks to a Mom in Chief tone.)
On an official visit to South Africa last year, she dropped to the floor for push-ups with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and during her recent Olympic foray, she allowed the wrestler Elena Pirozhkova to lift her clean off the ground. (''I thought, I can't just hug her like everybody else,'' Ms. Pirozhkova said afterward.)
The choreographer Bill T. Jones, commenting on how the first lady uses her body as an instrument of communication, said, ''She is someone you can literally feel you know.''
Her embraces and other stunts, though, make it easy to miss her ironclad discipline and tightly planned operation. She has become an expert at campaigning-without-campaigning, arriving at the London Olympics just as Mr. Romney also appeared there, sitting on late-night couches fielding gentle questions from hosts. (When she mentioned last week that her daughters attended summer camp, David Letterman asked, ''Does this need to be approved by the Senate?'') She answers with unfailing poise and comic timing, and the next day, her fans post the clips on Facebook with did-you-see-this enthusiasm.
But she has also done real political work for her husband -- stumping in 2008 and learning message discipline the hard way (though she was hugely popular, she made verbal missteps that allowed critics to cast her as aggrieved). She promoted President Obama's health care plan in 2009, though to keep her popularity high, advisers limited her association with the initiative. And for the past year, Mrs. Obama has been a central figure in her husband's campaign -- exhorting supporters to donate and volunteer, stating her husband's argument for re-election in simple, jargon-free terms.
When she's campaigning, Mrs. Obama approaches the task like an Olympic gymnast tackling a routine: she practices relentlessly and come performance time she executes according to plan. She often speaks from a teleprompter, even at small events, and her words vary little from stop to stop. (She repeated the same performance at least eight times in August, at events from New Hampshire to California.)
In the 2008 race, before she had a speechwriter, Mrs. Obama said what she felt: ''If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House,'' she said at an event in 2007, when Mr. Obama was squaring off against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now the prospect of her ad-libbing more than a few words seems as unlikely as Aly Raisman free-styling a floor routine.
Mrs. Obama has reason not to take risks, even beyond the fact that she was caricatured during the 2008 campaign. Throughout her time in the White House, she and her advisers have carefully protected her image; she knew her husband would need her for re-election from early on, aides say. So she has mostly avoided controversy, highly aware that any mistake on her part could cost her husband: in a sharply polarized country with close presidential contests, no other calculation makes sense.
''Who can be opposed to a hug from a tall, beautiful woman?'' said Kati Marton, author of ''Hidden Power,'' about presidential marriages. ''In this divisive climate, to be the hugger in chief is all that our first lady can do.''
PHOTOS: Michelle Obama meeting schoolchildren, top, in Washington in 2009. She made a video Monday with the actor Kal Penn, above left, in Charlotte, N.C. Right, connecting with a supporter in Richmond, Va., in 2009. She sees hugs as a way to ''narrow the gap.'' (PHOTOGRAPHS BY DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES; STEPHEN CROWLEY/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/us/politics/michelle-obamas-role-in-presidents-re-election-bid.html
LOAD-DATE: September 18, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1038 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
First Lady Strives for C aring Image Above Partisan Fray
BYLINE: By JODI KANTOR
SECTION: Section A ; Column 0; Politics; Pg. 17
LENGTH: 1259 words
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Thi s is how Michelle Obama delivers a hug: The nearly six-foot-tall first lady enve lops her target, her long arms often wrapping all the way around the recipient's back. She leans in close, unafraid to press her body against a stranger's. Work ing crowds with her husband, she sometimes falls behind him, because he is more of a hand-shaker or high-fiver, and in the second-to-second choreography of a ro pe line, the Michelle Obama hug takes time.
That hug, half motherly embrace a nd half papal benediction, has become a minor phenomenon. Many of the first lady 's events end with marathon hugging sessions, because people now hope to get one . At the Olympics, the United States men's basketball team lined up for hugs, th e sweaty giants waiting their turns like meek children. When Mrs. Obama gave the queen of England a mere half-hug, Britain went wild. The first lady delivers so lemn, private hugs to wounded service members. And all summer she has hugged her way across the country on behalf of her husband's campaign, drawing volunteers, donors, staff and potential converts near.
''Sometimes her staf f will roll their eyes, like O.K., here we go, because if there are 50 people wh o need to be hugged, she will hug them all,'' said Samantha Appleton, until rece ntly a White House photographer.
Those hugs are a useful metaphor for how M ichelle Obama approaches the roles of first lady and campaign surrogate. A Harva rd-trained lawyer, trying to win votes and high approval ratings, she offers int imacy without revelation. Her signature gesture is striking but safe.
That approach will probably be on display Tuesday night when Mrs. Obama addresses th e Democratic National Convention, giving a speech that advisers describe as an e xercise in empathy and connection.
Behind the scenes, Mrs. Obama's advocac y for her husband can be so forceful that speechwriters have had to tone it down over the years for public presentation, aides say. But despite the scathing cri tiques of Republicans that she had been known to deliver in private, her adviser s believe that she is most potent when she does not appear overtly political and that she comes across best as a gracious noncombatant in the red-and-blue wars. So at the convention, they say, she will try to present herself as a caring, wi fely figure and appear above the partisan fray.
Just as she has on the camp aign trail, Mrs. Obama is expected to describe her husband as a grounded, devote d man driven to build better lives for American children, implying he knows more about economic challenges than a wealthy son of fortune like Mitt Romney ever c an.
''Your president is the son of a single mother who struggled to put her self through school and pay the bills,'' she said at an event in Iowa in August. ''I remind people that Barack knows what it means when a family struggles,'' sh e continued. ''And that's why I love him, and that's why I will have his back fo rever.''
In that speech, she did not breathe Mr. Romney's name. As she camp aigned this summer, she barely used the word ''Republican.'' Instead she finishe s her remarks -- and begins dispensing hugs.
Mrs. Obama has told advisers s he uses the hugs to make herself less intimidating despite her position and heig ht -- to ''narrow the gap,'' said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, her former press sec retary. The hug is not a political tactic, aides say, but an expression of a des ire to connect.
One of the first big White House hugfests was in 2009, at the kickoff event for a mentoring program Mrs. Obama started for high school gir ls in Washington. Few of them had ever been to the White House, let alone at a m eeting with the first lady. ''She eliminated that panic and anxiety that the gir ls had by hugging them,'' Ms. Appleton said.
It is hard to remember another first lady who appeared as comfortable in her own body as does Mrs. Obama, who studied dance as a girl and later served on the board of an African dance compan y. She has shimmied, skipped, hopscotched, hula-hooped, jumping-jacked, and pota to-sack-raced her way through her tenure as first lady, using not just her posit ion but her body to push for more exercise and better nutrition for children. (S he is fighting an obesity crisis and trying to convince corporations to change p roducts and advertising, yet she sticks to a Mom in Chief tone.)
On an off icial visit to South Africa last year, she dropped to the floor for push-ups wit h Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and during her recent Olympic foray, she allowed the wrestler Elena Pirozhkova to lift her clean off the ground. (''I thought, I can' t just hug her like everybody else,'' Ms. Pirozhkova said afterward.)
The choreographer Bill T. Jones, commenting on how the first lady uses her body as a n instrument of communication, said, ''She is someone you can literally feel you know.''
Her embraces and other stunts, though, make it easy to miss her i ronclad discipline and tightly planned operation. She has become an expert at ca mpaigning-without-campaigning, arriving at the London Olympics just as Mr. Romne y also appeared there, sitting on late-night couches fielding gentle questions f rom hosts. (When she mentioned last week that her daughters attended summer camp , David Letterman asked, ''Does this need to be approved by the Senate?'') She a nswers with unfailing poise and comic timing, and the next day, her fans post th e clips on Facebook with did-you-see-this enthusiasm.
But she has also done real political work for her husband -- stumping in 2008 and learning message di scipline the hard way (though she was hugely popular, she made verbal missteps t hat allowed critics to cast her as aggrieved). She promoted President Obama's he alth care plan in 2009, though to keep her popularity high, advisers limited her association with the initiative. And for the past year, Mrs. Obama has been a c entral figure in her husband's campaign -- exhorting supporters to donate and vo lunteer, stating her husband's argument for re-election in simple, jargon-free t erms.
When she's campaigning, Mrs. Obama approaches the task like an Olympi c gymnast tackling a routine: she practices relentlessly and come performance ti me she executes according to plan. She often speaks from a teleprompter, even at small events, and her words vary little from stop to stop. (She repeated the sa me performance at least eight times in August, at events from New Hampshire to C alifornia.)
In the 2008 race, before she had a speechwriter, Mrs. Obama sa id what she felt: ''If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House,'' she said at an event in 2007, when Mr. Obama was squaring off ag ainst Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now the prospect of her ad-libbing more than a few words seems as unlikely as Aly Raisman free-styling a floor routine.
Mrs. Obama has reason not to take risks, even beyond the fact that she was caricature d during the 2008 campaign. Throughout her time in the White House, she and her advisers have carefully protected her image; she knew her husband would need her for re-election from early on, aides say. So she has mostly avoided controversy , highly aware that any mistake on her part could cost her husband: in a sharply polarized country with close presidential contests, no other calculation makes sense.
''Who can be opposed to a hug from a tall, beautiful woman?'' said K ati Marton, author of ''Hidden Power,'' about presidential marriages. ''In this divisive climate, to be the hugger in chief is all that our first lady can do.''
URL: http://www.nytimes .com/2012/09/04/us/politics/michelle-obamas-role-in-presidents-re-election-bid.h tml
LOAD-DATE: September 25, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Michelle Obama meeting schoolchildren, top, in W ashington in 2009. She made a video Monday with the actor Kal Penn, above left, in Charlotte, N.C. Right, connecting with a supporter in Richmond, Va., in 2009 . She sees hugs as a way to ''narrow the gap.'' (PHOTOGRAPHS BY DOUG MILLS/THE N EW YORK TIMES
STEPHEN CROWLEY/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1039 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(After Deadline)
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
In a Word
BYLINE: PHILIP B. CORBETT
SECTION: TIMESTOPICS
LENGTH: 1293 words
HIGHLIGHT: For the end of summer, here's an extra-large grab bag of grammar, style and other missteps, compiled with help from colleagues and readers.
For the end of summer, here's an extra-large grab bag of grammar, style and other missteps, compiled with help from colleagues and readers.
Convention planners were downplaying suggestions early Tuesday that their event might yet be reduced to a single night, saying that while they were keeping a close eye on the storm, they were continuing with their revised schedule full steam ahead.
From The Times's stylebook:
downplay. An ungainly leftover from the age of penny-a-word telegram economies. Make it play down.
Through the narrow corridors and battered shelves of the cozy store in the storied Brill Building in Times Square, a knowing worker will then peruse and (more often than not) find the sheet music, vinyl record or CD the person is looking for.
"Peruse" is not a synonym for search; it means to read or study, and takes a direct object. Not the phrasing we wanted here.
Mrs. Ryan's mother struggled with cancer for the last 35 years of her life, first battling advanced melanoma, then breast cancer, then ovarian cancer and a recurrence of the melanoma she thought she had beat.
Make it "had beaten."
Nebraskans approved it by a margin of more than 2-to-1.
Campaign alert: The margin, as the stylebook notes, is "the difference between two values." "More than 2 to 1" is a ratio or proportion (and also doesn't need hyphens here).
The idea that during rape, "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down'' to prevent pregnancy, as Mr. Akin said, has surfaced periodically among anti-abortion advocates over the past two decades, usually involving the term "forcible rape'' to refer to what Mr. Akin called "legitimate.''
Avoid this head-spinning combination of pro and con. "Abortion opponents" is simple and clear.
That Mr. Holmes, who is being held in the Arapahoe County jail awaiting arraignment on 142 criminal counts, deteriorated to the point of deadly violence cannot help but raise questions about the adequacy of the treatment he received and about the steps the university took or failed to take in dealing with a deeply troubled student.
The stylebook prefers "cannot help raising."
I first landed at Bank of America not by choice, but by acquisition. Some 20 years ago, I became a customer of Bank South when I moved to Atlanta as a youngish journalist. (My discerning criteria at the time was that it had a branch near my apartment and an A.T.M. near my office.)
"Criteria" is plural. Use "criterion" or choose a different word.
Mr. Romney, a Mormon, and Mr. Ryan, a Catholic, also represent a new era in presidential politics: neither are Protestants.
Make it "neither is a Protestant."
Looking back at London 2012 (the closing ceremony is today), watching how the Duchess dressed may very well have been one of the Games' most heavily spectated sports.
The verb "spectate" is probably best avoided, but in any case it's intransitive and shouldn't be used as a passive participle like this. (Also, the introductory phrase here seems to be a dangler.)
BOSTON -- Mitt Romney read Scripture from his iPad as he juggled his 2-year-old grandson on his lap. He made sure to accept a small piece of white bread and cup of water, representing the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, from a member of the priesthood who looked like he was about to accidentally pass him by.
Avoid this use of "like" as a conjunction. Make it "as if."
Many criminals in the city are becoming more sophisticated, like using high-tech tools for identity theft and other forms of computer crimes.
A different "like" problem -- there's no noun here for the "like" phrase to refer to. Rephrase.
Prosecutors loosened howls of indignation. Prominent prosecutorial sorts have written letters in the past month and intimated they will no longer serve on committees if such calumnies stand.
The word we wanted here was "loosed," meaning "released."
Ms. Brown said her columns and Twitter posts were her own writing -- she also has penned two recent Op-Ed articles for The New York Times, one calling Planned Parenthood too ideologically driven, and another saying President Obama can be condescending to women -- and dismissed accusations that she was doing anyone else's bidding.
"Penned" is journalese. "Wrote" is perfectly good.
One bypasser said as he exited, "Those two really know how to bring the house down.''
Make it "passer-by."
Confident his teammates were on board, he hopped a flight Saturday afternoon.
The idiom used in this sentence about the football player Nick Mangold's trip to London to watch his sister in the Olympics creates unintended ambiguity. Mangold's Jets teammates were figuratively "on board" with his flight, but were not on the plane.
"If a picture is worth a 1,000 words, video is worth 5,000 pictures and so to have any sort of raw footage is incredibly helpful to investigators," said Larry Cunningham, a former Bronx prosecutor who is an associate professor and associate dean at St. John's University School of Law in Queens.
The numeral doesn't work in this phrase. Make it "a thousand words."
Advocates for Mr. Ryan argue that he would be a boon to Mr. Romney on the ballot by cementing in voters' minds an economic vision for the country that is very different than Mr. Obama's.
Make it "different from."
In that regard, the tax could have enormous symbolic value as a blow for egalité, coming from a new president who has proclaimed, "I don't like the rich."
If we're going to use French -- appropriately enough, in this story about France -- we have to get it right, accents and all. Make it "égalité."
You can imagine the Goldstein family's dinner table was a blast, too: debates on the merits of Hannibal Hamlin, Abraham Lincoln's first vice president, verses John Nance Garner, one of F.D.R.'s three, who famously compared the vice presidency to ''a bucket of warm spit.''
Ouch. Make it "versus."
That feeling may fuel one of the Democrats' great hopes -- that threats to abortion rights, attacks on Planned Parenthood and objections to the health care law's requirement that insurance plans cover birth control pills -- will prove to be more meaningful for single women than jobs plans.
There should not be a second dash here. Better still, streamline the sentence.
But Mrs. Fournier, the smoking foe, thinks the soft approach is doomed.
"Foe" means enemy, as the stylebook points out. It's hyperbole in many contexts, where "opponent" would be perfectly adequate.
The government fought back hard, with no indication that its far superior military machine had lost its edge against an opposition still working predominately with small-caliber weapons.
As the stylebook says, use "predominantly" as the adverb.
[Caption] Mahmoud Shedid, left, Omar Hamed, center, and his brother Abdelrahman Hamed filled up on a pre-dawn meal in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, on Wednesday before their daily Ramadan fast.
The stylebook advises, "Ordinarily close up compounds formed with pre unless the prefix is directly followed by an e or an uppercase letter." But there is a reason "predawn" does not even appear in our dictionary: it is an unfortunate journalistic cliché of recent vintage.
Ms. Gu and the family aide, Zhang Xiaojun, are accused of killing Mr. Heywood in a hotel on the outskirts of Chongqing after what the state media has described as "a conflict of economic interests.''
Monolithic but still plural: make it "media have" (or "news media have").
Federal District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe's résumé includes many impressive accomplishments but not an art history degree. Nonetheless he has been asked to answer a question on which even pre-eminent art experts cannot agree: Are three reputed masterworks of Modernism genuine or fake.
This is a direct question and should end with a question mark.
LOAD-DATE: September 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1040 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
FINAL EDITION
Democrats take their turn in Charlotte;
As the party kicks off its convention, it wrestles with the 'are you better off' question
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8A
LENGTH: 1040 words
Bad economies can be fatal for presidents seeking re-election, and with the unemployment rate stuck at 8.3% as the Democratic convention begins today, President Obama is struggling with the worst for any president since Franklin Roosevelt.
When the first President Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992, the jobless rate was 7.4% on Election Day; when President Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980, unemployment was 7.5%, but a sideshow compared with 30-year mortgage rates of 14.2% and 52 Americans being held hostage in Iran for more than a year. In 1984, however, President Reagan survived a challenge from Walter Mondale and won a second term despite a jobless rate of 7.2%.
So Republicans are busy asking voters, as Reagan did in 1980, whether they're better off than they were four years ago.
But four years from when?
In August 2008, financial disaster hadn't yet struck. The unemployment rate was 6.1%. Yet by the time voters went to the polls in November, the White House and the Federal Reserve were scrambling desperately to avoid a depression. They succeeded -- barely. But the great recession was on. By Inauguration Day, the unemployment rate was soaring, ultimately reaching 10% the following October.
How, then, to score Obama?
Things undoubtedly would be a lot worse if he (and his predecessor) had been less aggressive. But his administration also misjudged the severity of the downturn, at one point projecting unemployment would cap out at 8%, so it's fair to infer different policies might have produced better results.
The candidates will spar; voters will judge. But the ever-popular four-years-ago question doesn't have much meaning this time around.
Bad timing, Part I. With all the meticulous planning that goes into political conventions, you have to wonder what organizers were thinking when they decided to go head-to-head with football. It was bad enough that Mitt Romney and the rest of last Thursday night's speakers at the GOP convention had to vie for TV eyeballs with college football's opening night (not to mention Hurricane Isaac).
But the NFL's Wednesday opener between the Super Bowl champion New York Giants and the rival Dallas Cowboys is a way bigger draw, leaving a problem for the featured speaker, former president Bill Clinton. A big part of Clinton's job is to shore up Obama's support among white, working-class men. Now what do you suppose they'll be watching?
Bad timing, Part II. Like the Republicans with Isaac, the Democrats will also have to cope with an unpredictable distraction. At 8:30 a.m. ET Friday, the Labor Department releases last month's unemployment numbers. If the numbers are bleak, that will be just in time to dampen whatever post-convention bounce Obama might get from his speech that ends barely nine hours earlier.
So much for stagecraft.
Unchained Joe. When Vice President Biden precedes Obama on the third and final night of the convention, he won't be introducing himself to the American public, the way Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Romney's 42-year-old running mate, did on the second night in Tampa. Instead, Biden's job will be to brag about the president's accomplishments ("Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive") and maintain his own viability for a possible run in 2016, when he'll turn 74. Will the famously gaffe-prone Biden stay on script, or will he ad-lib like Clint Eastwood? The fate of the nation hardly hangs in the balance, but that's what passes for drama at today's carefully choreographed conventions.
Un-free speech. The 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago showed what mass protest -- and gross police overreaction -- can do to a city's streets and a political convention. Protests against the Vietnam War, countered by a "police riot" (in the words of an official commission), turned the streets of Chicago into a battlefield. The violence overshadowed the political gathering and tainted Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey in his unsuccessful race against Richard Nixon, who portrayed himself as the law-and-order candidate.
Since then, it has seemed as if both political parties and every city that hosts a convention are determined to avoid a repeat of that 1968 debacle, and of the violent protests that have sprung up at international finance meetings since then. The precautions have gone too far.
City officials in Charlotte are restricting protesters to areas along a parade route and a speaker's platform that activists complain is six-tenths of a mile from the convention center. City officials in Tampa relegated protesters to a camp almost a mile from the building where the Republican convention took place. This leaves protesters so far from the delegates and politicians they're trying to reach that it's an embarrassment for a nation that prides itself on the freedoms of assembly and speech.
Too long. The two major political parties each get $18.2 million in federal funds for their conventions, plus $50 million each for security costs. Should taxpayers be footing those bills?
It's hard to quibble with the money for keeping the conventions safe from terrorists.
The real question is whether taxpayers should pay anything for the conventions' non-security costs. Shouldn't the parties themselves raise the money? Well, they do. Each party raises about twice as much as its taxpayer grant. The Republicans accept money from corporations, lobbyists and wealthy individuals. The Democrats bar contributions from corporations, lobbyists and mega donors, but loopholes abound.
This is a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't choice. Giving the parties taxpayer money seems wasteful at a time of huge deficits. On the other hand, when parties beg for money from private donors, they're creating obligations. No person or company throws around money like that without the expectation that it's buying them something.
On balance, then, public funding for conventions seems like the least bad choice. Here's a thought, though: In exchange for public funding, the parties could disavow special-interest money and do everyone a favor by making conventions shorter and cheaper. Now that everyone knows who the nominees are long before the actual event, all that's left is speeches, and one or two nights of those are plenty.
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1041 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
FINAL EDITION
Obama: Rivals 'bend the truth';
Laments 'fictional' version of him
BYLINE: Susan Page, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 1687 words
President Obama says he's older and wiser than he was during the heady 2008 campaign, and he has a more complicated message urging voters to stick with him as the country slowly digs out of "a very deep hole" on the economy.
So is the election less fun, the second time around?
"Well, I'll tell you, it's different," he says with a slightly pained expression on his face, then offers: "But the plane is a lot nicer."
At this moment, Obama is perched on the edge of a swivel chair in his office on that nicer plane, also known as Air Force One, his shirt sleeves rolled up. On the first leg of four days of travel that will take him to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, he talked with USA TODAY about his Thursday acceptance speech, his policy priorities for a second term and the lessons he's learned about the need to take his case to the American people over the heads of a polarized Congress.
First, though, a few words about Republican rival Mitt Romney. The GOP nominee had complained in a pre-convention interview with USA TODAY a week earlier that Obama was waging a "vituperative" campaign designed to demonize his opponent rather than debate the challenges facing the nation.
"I would say that it's a little ironic for a candidate who won the primaries telling his opponents not to whine, who just had a convention that was primarily devoted to going after me in ways that every media outlet has said bend the truth, and whose entire campaign has been built around assertions that don't jibe with the facts -- that he would want to spend most of his time talking about how tough we have been on him," Obama says.
The president takes his own slap at how he's been treated by the other side, saying they "have spent a lot of time creating a fictional Barack Obama who is supposedly taking the work out of welfare reform, or doesn't think small businesses built their own businesses."
Factcheck.org and other independent analysts back up the president's complaint about a Romney ad that accuses the president of gutting the 1996 welfare law by offering state waivers. The waivers offer states flexibility but not relief from the work requirement. Obama also says Republicans are mischaracterizing his remark at a rally that "you didn't build that" as signaling an anti-business attitude.
Those disputed allegations have become "the centerpieces of their campaigns" and of last week's GOP convention, he says.
"Gov. Romney spent a lot of time talking about himself and he spent a lot of time talking about me. He didn't spend a lot of time talking about the American people and how their lives will get better," the president says, then refers to himself in the third person. "I guess their premise is that the American people will be convinced, if we just get rid of Obama, then somehow that will be enough."
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul, asked to respond, says Obama is "desperately trying to convince voters that they are better off than they were four years ago, but the opposite is true," saying more people now live in poverty, and average family incomes have fallen. "President Obama has already insulted Americans by saying, 'You didn't build that' and 'the private sector is doing fine.' Now he's telling Americans, 'You're doing well, you're just not smart enough to know it.'"
During the interview, Obama is friendly, focused and intense, bending forward in his chair and close to his interviewer to be heard over the noise of the airplane. His tone softens at the end when asked how his daughters view this year's campaign.
Malia, now 14, and Sasha, 11, help him keep his balance, he says. "They're less involved (than in 2008) just because they have their own lives now and I can't take them on a bus tour because they're off at camp or trying out for the tennis team or, you know, doing all kinds of stuff that they consider to be a little more important than listening to Daddy's speeches."
They provide, he says with a smile, "a great antidote to taking yourself too seriously."
The road to Charlotte
When Obama walks on stage at the Living History Farms -- an "interactive outdoor museum" in suburban Des Moines that depicts a farm and rural village from another era -- there is some of the 2008 spark in the air. The assistant chief of the Urbandale Fire Department estimates the crowd stretching down a sun-splashed hillside totals 10,000 people on this Labor Day weekend. The president promises to finish in time for them to catch the home-state Hawkeyes and Cyclones play their football openers.
Four years ago, Obama's victory in Iowa's opening caucuses ignited his battle for the Democratic nomination against Hillary Rodham Clinton, then a New York senator and now secretary of State. This time, on what his campaign bills as "the Road to Charlotte," Obama is stumping in Iowa and Colorado (where the 2008 Democratic convention was held) and then making a stop in battleground Ohio before heading to North Carolina.
"There was a reason for me to begin the journey right here in Iowa, where it first began more than four years ago -- because it was you, Iowa, who kept us going when the pundits were writing us off," Obama tells the crowd. "And it will be you, Iowa, who choose the path we take from here."
He touches on a string of issues, including his support for college aid and wind-energy subsidies. He defends the signature health care law he signed and bashes the idea of extending the Bush tax cuts for the most affluent. He ridicules the proposals promoted at the Republican convention as out-of-date. "You might as well have watched it on a black-and-white TV," he jokes.
And he ends with a pitch for supporters to register to vote, and to vote early. (Iowans can begin casting ballots on Sept. 27.) "We will win Polk County again," he shouts over waves of applause, his voice beginning to rasp. "We will win Iowa again. We will win this election. We will finish what we started."
There's no question about the allegiance of Deb Grosse, 59, of West Des Moines: She's sporting a navy-blue Obama-Biden campaign T-shirt. She has supported Obama since the 2008 caucuses but worries about friends and neighbors who backed him then but aren't sure they will again.
"A lot of people are so discouraged about what's happened in the last four years that they've just gone to Romney without thinking about the issues," she says. "People are just going to vote for Romney because they blame Obama for everything." She hopes the Charlotte convention can somehow make voters understand "what he was left with four years ago" and how he needs more time to turn things around.
Which is precisely the line Obama is trying to walk.
A complicated task
Romney complicated the task in Obama's convention speech with his own.
In his acceptance speech last Thursday, Romney mocked the high expectations that surrounded Obama's 2008 campaign, underscoring the contrast with the downbeat tone of today. "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet," Romney said to some derisive laughter. "My promise is to help you and your family."
In the interview, Obama says his speech has a different mission than it did four years ago, though he seems to be inviting comparisons by planning to hold it once again in a football stadium.
"Well, obviously, we've gone through four years that have been very tough," he says. "The American people know me at this point much more. They know my strengths. I'm sure they know my weaknesses -- and if they aren't familiar with them, the other side will be happy to point them out."
"And so this is less an introduction to the American people than a conversation with them," he says. He will talk about how to "continue on a path that will lead us to a strong, secure middle class, robust economic growth, and a sense that our government is working on behalf of ordinary people to make sure everybody gets a fair shot, everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules."
Obama's delicate balance is to square the optimistic promises of 2008 with the grittier economic realities of 2012. He plans to argue that progress has been made on the economy during his tenure while acknowledging that the fragile recovery has left the nation with economic woes in jobs and housing. He says he will outline the "concrete plans" voters want to hear but without the "A-B-C-D" laundry list of a State of the Union Address.
Most of all, he'll contrast his proposals with those of his opponent, framing the election as about "as clear a choice as we've seen, in my mind, between two fundamentally different visions for our future."
Romney's problem isn't the oft-discussed likability gap, Obama says: "I've seen his wife and his family, and they seem like very good people. I don't think the problem is that somehow people think he's a bad guy. I think the problem is that the ideas he presents are not ones that are going to solve our problems. The American people know that and it's that choice that I think will end up driving this election."
He predicts a squeaker.
"Part of what makes it a close election is the economy is still tough for a lot of folks," he says. "When you present my ideas and Gov. Romney's ideas to people and say which are the better ideas, my ideas win out, (but) they're also looking at the reality of the unemployment rate, still above 8%, and that makes people anxious."
Lesson learned?
Although the nation is split politically, he says, the public generally doesn't embrace the ideological divide and partisan warfare that has frustrated his dealings with Congress. Count that as a lesson learned -- on the need to do more to convince Americans across the country rather than members of Congress at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue about the steps he wants to take.
"I have done my best over the past four years to try to bridge that divide so that how the American people view these problems in common-sense, practical ways is more reflected in what goes on in Washington," he says. "I haven't always been successful, obviously. But that's going to be my goal."
That is, if he gets a second-chance.
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, Color, Julie Snider, USA TODAY (Bar graph)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: COVER STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1042 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
September 4, 2012 Tuesday 10:48 PM EST
Poll shows Romney-Obama matchup largely unchanged after GOP convention;
A mixed bag for Romney -- his favorably ticked up, but a plurality of voters said they were less likely to vote for him based on what they saw or read about the Tampa convention.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 575 words
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
RNC boosts Romney among the GOP women
Fix Hangout with Guy Cecil: What do the Democrats want to accomplish in Charlotte?
5 speakers to watch at the Democratic National Convention, Day 1
Gabrielle Giffords launches Gabby PAC
The death of the convention bounce?
The Republican answer to the are you better off question in 1 chart
The Obama answer to the are you better off question in 1 chart
President Obamas tough sell on the are you better off question
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* A new CNN/ORC International poll shows that coming out of the Republican National Convention, the head-to-head matchup between Mitt Romney andPresidentObama was largely unchanged. The race was about even (Obama led 49 percent to 47 percent) before theconventionandremained so after it (Obama and Romney were tied at 48 percent). Romney'sfavorability rating did tick up from 50 percent to 53 percent post-convention, but more registered voters (46 percent) said they were less likely to vote for Romney than more likely (36 percent) to vote for him, following what they saw or read about the GOP convention.
* Obama and Vice President Biden will campaign in New Hampshire and Iowa on Friday, a day after the Democratic National Convention wraps up in Charlotte. On Saturday, the president will make a two-day swingthroughFlorida, while Biden will head to Ohio. First lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden will also attend the Friday campaign events.
* Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting Obama, had its bestfundraisingmonth yet in August, hauling in $10 million.
* Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers (R) released his first TV ad, a 30-second spot that touts his business acumen. "In the Senate, Charlie Summers will vote to cut spending, repeal Obamacare and help small businesses create jobs," the ad says. Summers is asizableunderdog against independent former governor Angus King in the race.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Another Democratic convention delegate has made a Nazi reference. Pat Lehman, a delegate from Kansas,said of Republicans' contention that voter ID laws are meant to combat fraud:Its like Hitler said, if youre going to tell a lie, tell a big lie, and if you tell it often enough and say it in a loud enough voice, some people are going to believe you." On Monday, California Democratic Chairman John Burton said of Republican dishonesty:They lie and they dont care if people think they lie ... Joseph Goebbels its the big lie, you keep repeating it.
* Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)released a new TV adin which he pitches himself as tough on China."IbroughtDemocrats and Republicans together to pass tariffs on China. Now, we canlevelthe playing field for American workers," Brown says in the ad.
* The National Republican Congressional Committee haslaunched three new independent expenditure ads. Two of the spots go after Democrats Reps. Ben Chandler (Ky.) and Mark Critz (Pa.) while one helps freshman Republican Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) by going after his Democratic opponent.
* An Occupy protest blocked traffic near the convention site in Charlotte earlier Tuesday but has since ended. About 200protestersmarched to the convention sitefrom anearbyencampment.
THE FIX MIX:
What a shot.
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1043 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 4, 2012 Tuesday 8:12 PM EST
At military's 'turning point,' Panetta avoids bold moves At military's 'turning point,' Panetta avoids bold moves
BYLINE: Greg Jaffe
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2502 words
For most of the past year, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has stressed that the vast military complex over which he presides is at a "strategic turning point." A decade of grinding guerrilla war is drawing to a close. Defense budgets are shrinking. The implication is that major changes are coming to the military.
So far, however, Panetta has cut few major weapons programs and steered clear of any bold moves aimed at remaking the military for this new era. The watchword for Panetta's tenure, senior defense officials said, has been "humble."
"He's told the service chiefs to be humble in their predictions of warfare," one senior official said.
Panetta's approach reflects a management style that throughout his career has placed a premium on consensus over major reforms and collegiality over bold thinking, said officials who have worked with him. "He has always run a happy, productive shop," said former ambassador James Dobbins, who worked closely with Panetta in the Clinton White House.
Because he has not spent his career in the national security realm, Panetta has tended to rely more heavily on the Pentagon's top generals for advice than his predecessors did, senior military officials said.
In an interview describing his defense strategy, Panetta said he has helped craft an approach that hedges bets against a range of potential enemies. "It really does provide maximum flexibility," he said. "The military is going to be smaller, but it is going to be more agile, more flexible and more deployable so that it moves fast and stays on the cutting edge of technology."
Panetta's vision is notable for some of the big questions left unanswered. A highly touted promise to shift the military's focus to Asia has produced little in the way of major new deployments. Nine months after it was unveiled, there is scant evidence of how it will be implemented."This is a time when you would expect an intense focus on where we want to go and what we want to be," said Andrew Hoehn, a senior vice president at the Rand Corp. and a former Pentagon strategist. Hoehn said such a debate does not appear to be happening inside the Pentagon or in the presidential campaigns, which have largely ignored national security issues.
Although the war in Iraq has ended and troops are being withdrawn from Afghanistan, Panetta has not pressed the ground forces to conduct a tough and detailed examination of their performance in the two long and costly wars, said Eliot Cohen, a military historian at Johns Hopkins University and an adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign.
In recent years, Army and Marine Corps officers have tended to blame their struggles on the State Department and other federal agencies, which were unable to provide the necessary help to rebuild the war-torn countries' governments and economies.
Cohen said the finger-pointing has prevented the ground services from acknowledging their own shortcomings, such as their inability to produce a core of experts in the culture, politics, history and languages of the two countries where they have spent most of the past decade fighting.
Panetta said he would like to see the military do more in this area. "I think we have to look at the lessons that we draw, particularly from these last 10 years of war," he said. "I'm not satisfied. I think more needs to be done."
The Obama administration's defense strategy, meanwhile, plays down the likelihood of the military fighting major counterinsurgency wars in the coming years. To that end, Panetta has ordered the Army to shrink to about 490,000 soldiers by 2017, a reduction of about 80,000 that will leave the force slightly larger than it was before Sept. 11, 2001.
A leadership contrast
A surprise pick to run the CIA in 2009, Panetta had spent most of his career as a congressman from California and a deficit hawk in the Clinton administration, including a stint as White House chief of staff.
Even after 21 / 2 years at the CIA and 14 months at the Pentagon, Panetta's speeches tend to steer clear of the kinds of detailed policy prescriptions and tough questions that were routine under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, his immediate predecessor.
"Do we really need 11 [aircraft] carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked a Navy audience in 2010. He also challenged the Marines to consider whether, in an era of increasingly precise cruise missiles, they would be called upon again to storm an enemy's shore - a question that cuts to the core of the Marines' identity. Gates's goal was to encourage lower-ranking officers to challenge military pieties.
By contrast, Panetta sometimes sounds more like a congressman representing the "Pentagon district" than the leader of the world's largest military. He talks frequently about his parents, who immigrated from Italy. And he regularly rails against the possibility that the Pentagon will have to absorb $500 billion in automatic cuts if Congress cannot agree on how to trim $1.2 trillion in government spending. The cuts, triggered under an arcane process known as sequestration, would come on top of an already mandated $487 billion in reductions. "It's mindless, and it will . . . do incredible damage to our national defense," Panetta said last month in a speech in New York.
As he did during his days as a congressman, Panetta spends most weekends in California, commuting home on a military jet at a cost of more than $800,000 as of this spring, the latest figures available.
In the interview, Panetta played down the value of speeches that question the military's most prized programs or press its officers to embrace new or unpopular ideas.
"I don't think it's smart to challenge the services publicly," he said. "My style has always been to basically work with a team and have everybody feel part of the team."
Generals approve
The Pentagon's top generals say they appreciate Panetta's less-confrontational style.
"Gates was trying to challenge all of us," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, said in an interview. "Secretary Panetta just operates differently. He has been very transparent with the chiefs and allowed us to participate much more than we have in the past."
Panetta's backers note that he is leading the Pentagon at a different time than Gates, who presided over a growing defense budget and could afford to raise tough questions without worrying that they would be used as fodder for cuts.
Panetta also faces a greater array of threats than did Gates, whose time in the Pentagon was dominated by Iraq and Afghanistan.
The current list of crises stretches from growing unrest in Syria and Iran's nuclear ambitions to a new leader in North Korea and rising tensions between China and its neighbors around the South China Sea. He's overseeing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan amid unrelenting Taliban attacks."For the first time in a decade, the urgent priority mission is not staring us in the face," said Michele Flournoy, who recently stepped down as the Pentagon's top policy official.
Panetta acknowledged the challenge of confronting myriad threats in an era of diminished resources. But he rejected criticism from those who say he lacks a vision or hasn't pressed hard enough for change.
"What kind of world are we going to be dealing with in the future?" he asked. "I think it's going to look a lot like what we're looking at now."
jaffeg@washpost.com
For most of the past year, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has stressed that the vast military complex over which he presides is at a "strategic turning point."A decade of grinding guerrilla war is drawing to a close. Defense budgets are shrinking. The implication is that major changes are coming to the military.
So far, however, Panetta has cut few major weapons programs and steered clear of any bold moves aimed at remaking the military for this new era. The watchword for Panetta's tenure, senior defense officials said, has been "humble."
"He's told the service chiefs to be humble in their predictions of warfare," one senior official said.
Panetta's approach reflects a management style that throughout his career has placed a premium on consensus over major reforms and collegiality over bold thinking, said officials who have worked with him. "He has always run a happy, productive shop," said former ambassador James Dobbins, who worked closely with Panetta in the Clinton White House.
Because he has not spent his career in the national security realm, Panetta has tended to rely more heavily on the Pentagon's top generals for advice than his predecessors did, senior military officials said.
In an interview describing his defense strategy, Panetta said he has helped craft an approach that hedges bets against a range of potential enemies. "It really does provide maximum flexibility," he said. "The military is going to be smaller, but it is going to be more agile, more flexible and more deployable so that it moves fast and stays on the cutting edge of technology."
Panetta's vision is notable for some of the big questions left unanswered. A highly touted promise to shift the military's focus to Asia has produced little in the way of major new deployments. Nine months after it was unveiled, there is scant evidence of how it will be implemented."This is a time when you would expect an intense focus on where we want to go and what we want to be," said Andrew Hoehn, a senior vice president at the Rand Corp. and a former Pentagon strategist. Hoehn said such a debate does not appear to be happening inside the Pentagon or in the presidential campaigns, which have largely ignored national security issues.
Although the war in Iraq has ended and troops are being withdrawn from Afghanistan, Panetta has not pressed the ground forces to conduct a tough and detailed examination of their performance in the two long and costly wars, said Eliot Cohen, a military historian at Johns Hopkins University and an adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign.
In recent years, Army and Marine Corps officers have tended to blame their struggles on the State Department and other federal agencies, which were unable to provide the necessary help to rebuild the war-torn countries' governments and economies.
Cohen said the finger-pointing has prevented the ground services from acknowledging their own shortcomings, such as their inability to produce a core of experts in the culture, politics, history and language of the two countries where they have spent most of the past decade fighting.
Panetta said he would like to see the military do more in this area. "I think we have to look at the lessons that we draw, particularly from these last 10 years of war," he said. "I'm not satisfied. I think more needs to be done."
The Obama administration's defense strategy, meanwhile, plays down the likelihood of the military fighting major countersinsurgency wars in the coming years. To that end, Panetta has ordered the Army to shrink to about 490,000 soldiers by 2017, a reduction of about 80,000 that will leave the force slightly larger than it was before Sept. 11, 2001.
A leadership contrast
A surprise pick to run the CIA in 2009, Panetta had spent most of his career as a congressman from California and a deficit hawk in the Clinton administration, including a stint as White House chief of staff.
Even after 21 / 2 years at the CIA and 14 months at the Pentagon, Panetta's speeches tend to steer clear of the kinds of detailed policy prescriptions and tough questions that were routine under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, his immediate predecessor.
"Do we really need 11 [aircraft] carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked a Navy audience in 2010. He also challenged the Marines to consider whether, in an era of increasingly precise cruise missiles, they would be called upon again to storm an enemy's shore - a question that cuts to the core of the Marines' identity. Gates's goal was to encourage lower-ranking officers to challenge military pieties.
By contrast, Panetta sometimes sounds more like a congressman representing the "Pentagon district" than the leader of the world's largest military. He talks frequently about his parents, who immigrated from Italy. And he regularly rails against the possibility that the Pentagon will have to absorb $500 billion in automatic cuts if Congress cannot agree on how to trim $1.2 trillion in government spending. The cuts, triggered under an arcane process known as sequestration, would come on top of an already mandated $487 billion in reductions. "It's mindless, and it will . . . do incredible damage to our national defense," Panetta said last month in a speech in New York.
As he did during his days as a congressman, Panetta spends most weekends in California, commuting home on a military jet at a cost of more than $800,000 as of this spring, the latest figures available.
In the interview, Panetta played down the value of speeches that question the military's most prized programs or press its officers to embrace new or unpopular ideas.
"I don't think it's smart to challenge the services publicly," he said. "My style has always been to basically work with a team and have everybody feel part of the team."
Generals approve
The Pentagon's top generals say they appreciate Panetta's less-confrontational style.
"Gates was trying to challenge all of us," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, said in an interview. "Secretary Panetta just operates differently. He has been very transparent with the chiefs and allowed us to participate much more than we have in the past."
Panetta's backers note that he is leading the Pentagon at a different time than Gates, who presided over a growing defense budget and could afford to raise tough questions without worrying that they would be used as fodder for cuts.
Panetta also faces a greater array of threats than did Gates, whose time in the Pentagon was dominated by Iraq and Afghanistan.
The current list of crises stretches from growing unrest in Syria and Iran's nuclear ambitions to a new leader in North Korea and rising tensions between China and its neighbors around the South China Sea. He's overseeing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan amid unrelenting Taliban attacks."For the first time in a decade, the urgent priority mission is not staring us in the face," said Michele Flournoy, who recently stepped down as the Pentagon's top policy official.
Panetta acknowledged the challenge of confronting myriad threats in an era of diminished resources. But he rejected criticism from those who say he lacks a vision or hasn't pressed hard enough for change.
"What kind of world are we going to be dealing with in the future?" he asked. "I think it's going to look a lot like what we're looking at now."
jaffeg@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1044 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 4, 2012 Tuesday 8:12 PM EST
Why the political party conventions are still key
BYLINE: Brad Plumer
SECTION: A section; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 1363 words
According to Julian Zelizer:
"The most important political party conventions in U.S. history arguably occurred in 1860, when the Democratic Party split into two over slavery and Republicans selected Abraham Lincoln on the third ballot. In the months that followed, the country headed toward secession and war.
There's been nothing nearly as dramatic since, especially in the modern era. Nowadays, the nominees are known well in advance, picked in primaries and caucuses. . . . Most of the speeches and events are scripted (with the exception of Clint Eastwood, perhaps). Conventions have mostly become three-day commercials for the two major political parties."
And yet, says Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University, party conventions are still extremely important.
Brad Plumer: We're no longer at the point where presidential nominees are actually selected at the party conventions. So could it be fair to say that these things no longer matter?
JZ: Yeah, for a long time before the 1960s, they were actually the places where the candidates were selected, where party bosses still mattered, where there was an opportunity to question and challenge the different candidates. That changed in the late 1960s and early '70s, with the whole idea being that primaries and caucuses would allow non-party bosses to decide who the nominee was. So now they mainly just serve the function of showcasing the presidential and vice presidential nominees and the party. These are tightly scripted commercials. But that's still valuable. It's a moment when more people are watching, when the parties can explain what their candidate is about for more than 30-second spots.
The other place where I think conventions still have value is that they're a test of the nominees. One important thing that presidents do is speak. We're looking for someone who can give a very good speech, during a military emergency or an economic crisis. There's something to seeing Mitt Romney and Barack Obama step into the spotlight and have to do something that's a little more lengthy than a quick response to the reporter.
BP:Talk about some of the more important speeches that have helped do this.
JZ:One of the more politically smart convention speeches came from Ronald Reagan in 1980. He was facing a Republican Party that was far more divided than it is today. You had social conservatives, neoconservatives, budget hawks. And so in his convention speech, Reagan very skillfully brought a lot of these things together. You could see in his speech how he was going to hold this coalition in the fall, how he would defeat the Democrats. He really laid out the themes for his presidency.
This is going back further, but Franklin Roosevelt did something similar in his acceptance speech in 1932. He introduced the New Deal, he started to outline how government would start intervening in agriculture and the urban crisis and unemployment and used it as a road map. So whereas Reagan used his speech to hold his political coalition together, FDR actually outlined his governing agenda.
Then in 1988, George H.W. Bush gave a very effective speech at the convention. He was seen as a weak candidate, but he gave a very powerful speech that helped him defeat Michael Dukakis in the fall. Of course, that speech also contained the promise not to raise taxes, which came back to haunt him when he signed a tax deal two years later. So that speech turned out to matter a great deal - it was held up as proof that he had betrayed conservative ideals.
BP:And there are plenty of people who have given important speeches even if they never went on to become president. Barry Goldwater in 1964, for instance.
JZ:Absolutely. In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater makes his speech about extremism being a virtue and about his party returning to conservative principles. It's a disaster for that election. But it became inspirational, and the speech was absolutely crucial in the GOP's move to the right.
The same goes for 1948. This is still in the pre-scripted era, but Hubert Humphrey is an unknown guy running for Senate for Minnesota, and at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, he calls on his party to support civil rights. He tells all the Southern delegates that the time has come to support legislation, that they can't keep talking about states' rights. That was seen as an important moment when liberal Northerners within the party finally stood up on the issue. And some Southerners ended up bolting the party that year, led by Strom Thurmond.
And then one last one was Ted Kennedy in 1980. He lost the nomination to Jimmy Carter, but he still makes an impassioned speech about the Democratic Party and the need not to move to the center, he talks about the traditions of the party and sailing against the wind. Defend common people from business. For many liberals that was a real rallying cry, it gave them juice for the decade to come.
Plus the conventions can help showcase young talent in the party. The obvious example is 2004, when Barack Obama gave the keynote address and introduced himself to the country.
BP:So where did Romney's acceptance speech on Thursday fit into this? Are there any good historical analogues?
JZ:I thought it was a good speech for him. He's not Ronald Reagan, he's not Ted Kennedy, he's not bringing that kind of firepower. It's not like Goldwater laying out a dramatic argument for where the party needs to go. The best analogy might actually be Bill Clinton in 1996, where the one thing Clinton did with his acceptance speech was try to offer voters a sense for why he can win moderate votes, why he represented the new political middle. Romney was trying to do that last night, appealing to independent voters and Obama supporters. He was asking people to rethink whom they voted for last time around.
BP: Now, some political scientists have argued that the "bump" in the polls that conventions give candidates seems to be fading out over time. Does that suggest conventions are becoming less relevant? Or are the polls missing something?
JZ:Even a small, short bump can be worth something. It can help reenergize a campaign after a long primary. You could see by the end of the summer, Romney looked tired, he was getting beat up, and if the reaction to the Republican convention is relatively good, that's not unimportant at all. So there's more to look at than just the polls. A convention can help shape the narrative of the campaign. That's difficult to do over the summer, when people's interest in politics starts diminishing, so this is a way to recapture that attention. . . .
Conventions [also] offer a great fundraising opportunity, with all these Republicans and Democrats in one place.
BP: What about party platforms? Do those matter at all?
JZ:I'm not sure about that. There's often not much correlation between what's in the party platform and what happens with the nominee or party. I think the debate over the platform can sometimes be more important. That debate gets coverage, and that's been true going back to the 1950s and 1960s, when there were a lot of platform debates over how to talk about civil rights. These debates provide a way for reporters to think about where the party is and to discuss various issues.
BP: And what about the conventions themselves? Are these going to stick around for years?
JZ: I could see these events becoming a lot shorter in the years ahead. That could either happen because parties see that it works fine if you have one less day of activities, or because of a drop in contributions or budget cuts. . . . [Note: The federal government paid about $36 million in 2012 to fund the party conventions.]
And the drop in television coverage will probably also have an impact. The nature of conventions will change if the networks are only showing a little bit of each day. Parties will inevitably start focusing on just a few speeches. The conventions will become less important at showcasing new talent.
Brad Plumer
Transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1045 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
September 4, 2012 Tuesday 1:33 PM EST
President Obama's tough sell on the 'are you better off' question;
Why making the best of a bad situation is a political loser.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 896 words
CHARLOTTE - The last 48 hours in the presidential campaign have been focused on the single toughest question for President Obama and his political inner circle to answer in this race: Are you better off than you were four years ago?
The question, which was asked by a number of Sunday talk show hosts - and largely dodged by Democratic elected officials - gets to the heart of the argument that Republicans believe wins them the election: Obama promised to make things better and he hasn't produced.
"The president can say a lot of things, but he cant tell you that youre better off," Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan said at a rally in Greenville, N.C., on Monday.
The political problem for Democrats in answering the "are you better off" question is twofold.
The first prong of the problem is that public perception is (and has been) that we are not better off - and that perception makes any attempt by the Obama Administration to prove that things are getting better much more difficult.
An August CBS News/New York Times poll showed just one in five respondents said things were better than four year ago, while roughly four in 10 people said they were either worse or about the same.
And, there's little confidence in the electorate that re-electing Obama is the solution. Forty-three percent of those tested in an August Washington Post-ABC News poll said that they were confident that if Obama won a second term the economy would get back on track in a year or two, while 56 percent said they were not confident that would happen.
The second prong of the problem in the "are you better off" question for Team Obama is that its honest answer is "Yes, but...." - meaning that while they can (and do) point to successes the President has had during his first term, what they really and truly believe is that the last Republican president handed him a near-impossible situation that he has made the best of.
Of course, making the best of a bad situation is not exactly a persuasive argument to people who continue to struggle and who see the President as the person most responsible for bringing about change. (The discussion over presidents getting too much blame for bad economies and too much credit for good ones is worth another blog post - or book.)
The fact is that for Obama and his allies, there is no simple answer to the "are you better off" question. The answer is nuanced and complex, which tends to equal "stone cold loser" in purely political terms.
The president and his team know this, which is why they will try to get away from the "are you better off" frame as soon as possible. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney knows it too, which is why he and his party will keep pushing the question as hard as they can for as long as they can.
Romney leads in North Carolina:Two new pollsreleased on the eve of the Democratic National Convention show Obama trailing narrowly in the state where the convention is being held.
A newElon University pollconducted for the Charlotte Observer and Raleigh News and Observer shows Romney leading 47 percent to 43 percent. Meanwhile, an automated poll fromHigh Point University and SurveyUSAshows a similar picture, with Romney at 46 percent and Obama at 43 percent.
The Elon poll, notably, shows Republican former Charlotte mayor Pat McCrory leading the state's governor's race by 15 points.
Another automated poll, from Democratic-leaning pollsterPublic Policy Polling, shows a better picture for Democrats, with Obama and Romney tied at 48 percent and McCrory ahead of Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton (D) by six points.
An interesting side note: PPP also tested GOP convention star Condoleezza Rice's favorable numbers, and they are remarkable: 62 percent favorable against 25 percent unfavorable.
Fixbits:
A new adfrom the Obama campaign says Romney's tax plan will force middle class families to pay $2,000 more in taxes every year.
A U-Haul carrying Vice President Biden's gear in Detroitwas stolen. It was later recovered.
Romney will spend the next three days doingdebate prep in Vermont.
Anew Gallup pollshows lukewarm responses to Romney's convention speech and the GOP convention as a whole. But Nate Silver sees Romney gettinga small bounce.
California Democratic Party Chairman John Burtoncompares the GOP to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
Not to be outdone, Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman John Walshapologizesafter saying Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was trying to be an "honorary girl" by folding towels in a campaign ad.
A poll conducted for Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) shows himleading by 24 points.
Must-reads:
"Obama campaign faces delicate balance at Democratic National Convention" - Chris Cillizza, Washington Post
"Mitt Romney exited Bain Capital with rare tax benefits in retirement" - Tom Hamburger, Washington Post
"The Competitor in Chief" - Jodi Kantor, New York Times
"Joe Biden Isnt Finished" - John Heilemann, New York Magazine
"Barack Obama and Bill Clinton's Quasi-friendship" - Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker
"Obama facing mounting questions over you didnt build that remark" - Amy Gardner, Washington Post
"Wives of presidential contenders play role of humanizer" - Tomi Obaro, Washington Post
"Obama finds key asset in Bill Clintons support" - David Maraniss, Washington Post
"San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro makes leap onto national stage" - Peter Wallsten, Washington Post
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1046 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
Met 2 Edition
At military's 'turning point,' Panetta avoids bold moves
BYLINE: Greg Jaffe
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2465 words
For most of the past year, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has stressed that the vast military complex over which he presides is at a "strategic turning point."
A decade of grinding guerrilla war is drawing to a close. Defense budgets are shrinking. The implication is that major changes are coming to the military.
So far, however, Panetta has cut few major weapons programs and steered clear of any bold moves aimed at remaking the military for this new era. The watchword for Panetta's tenure, senior defense officials said, has been "humble."
"He's told the service chiefs to be humble in their predictions of warfare," one senior official said.
Panetta's approach reflects a management style that throughout his career has placed a premium on consensus over major reforms and collegiality over bold thinking, said officials who have worked with him. "He has always run a happy, productive shop," said former ambassador James Dobbins, who worked closely with Panetta in the Clinton White House.
Because he has not spent his career in the national security realm, Panetta has tended to rely more heavily on the Pentagon's top generals for advice than his predecessors did, senior military officials said.
In an interview describing his defense strategy, Panetta said he has helped craft an approach that hedges bets against a range of potential enemies. "It really does provide maximum flexibility," he said. "The military is going to be smaller, but it is going to be more agile, more flexible and more deployable so that it moves fast and stays on the cutting edge of technology."
Panetta's vision is notable for some of the big questions left unanswered. A highly touted promise to shift the military's focus to Asiahas produced little in the way of major new deployments. Nine months after it was unveiled, there is scant evidence of how it will be implemented.
"This is a time when you would expect an intense focus on where we want to go and what we want to be," said Andrew Hoehn, a senior vice president at the Rand Corp. and a former Pentagon strategist. Hoehn said such a debate does not appear to be happening inside the Pentagon or in the presidential campaigns, which have largely ignored national security issues.
Although the war in Iraq has ended and troops are being withdrawn from Afghanistan, Panetta has not pressed the ground forces to conduct a tough and detailed examination of their performance in the two long and costly wars, said Eliot Cohen, a military historian at Johns Hopkins University and an adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign.
In recent years, Army and Marine Corps officers have tended to blame their struggles on the State Department and other federal agencies, which were unable to provide the necessary help to rebuild the war-torn countries' governments and economies.
Cohen said the finger-pointing has prevented the ground services from acknowledging their own shortcomings, such as their inability to produce a core of experts in the culture, politics, history and languages of the two countries where they have spent most of the past decade fighting.
Panetta said he would like to see the military do more in this area. "I think we have to look at the lessons that we draw, particularly from these last 10 years of war," he said. "I'm not satisfied. I think more needs to be done."
The Obama administration's defense strategy, meanwhile, plays down the likelihood of the military fighting major counterinsurgency wars in the coming years. To that end, Panetta has ordered the Army to shrink to about 490,000 soldiers by 2017, a reduction of about 80,000 that will leave the force slightly larger than it was before Sept. 11, 2001.
A leadership contrast
A surprise pick to run the CIA in 2009, Panetta had spent most of his career as a congressman from California and a deficit hawk in the Clinton administration, including a stint as White House chief of staff.
Even after 21 / 2 years at the CIA and 14 months at the Pentagon, Panetta's speeches tend to steer clear of the kinds of detailed policy prescriptions and tough questions that were routine under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, his immediate predecessor.
"Do we really need 11 [aircraft] carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked a Navy audience in 2010. He also challenged the Marines to consider whether, in an era of increasingly precise cruise missiles, they would be called upon again to storm an enemy's shore - a question that cuts to the core of the Marines' identity. Gates's goal was to encourage lower-ranking officers to challenge military pieties.
By contrast, Panetta sometimes sounds more like a congressman representing the "Pentagon district" than the leader of the world's largest military. He talks frequently about his parents, who immigrated from Italy. And he regularly rails against the possibility that the Pentagon will have to absorb $500 billion in automatic cutsif Congress cannot agree on how to trim $1.2 trillion in government spending. The cuts, triggered under an arcane process known as sequestration, would come on top of an already mandated $487 billion in reductions.
"It's mindless, and it will . . . do incredible damage to our national defense," Panetta said last month in a speech in New York.
As he did during his days as a congressman, Panetta spends most weekends in California, commuting home on a military jet at a cost of more than $800,000 as of this spring, the latest figures available.
In the interview, Panetta played down the value of speeches that question the military's most prized programs or press its officers to embrace new or unpopular ideas.
"I don't think it's smart to challenge the services publicly," he said. "My style has always been to basically work with a team and have everybody feel part of the team."
Generals approve
The Pentagon's top generals say they appreciate Panetta's less-confrontational style.
"Gates was trying to challenge all of us," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, said in an interview. "Secretary Panetta just operates differently. He has been very transparent with the chiefs and allowed us to participate much more than we have in the past."
Panetta's backers note that he is leading the Pentagon at a different time than Gates, who presided over a growing defense budget and could afford to raise tough questions without worrying that they would be used as fodder for cuts.
Panetta also faces a greater array of threats than did Gates, whose time in the Pentagon was dominated by Iraq and Afghanistan.
The current list of crises stretches from growing unrest in Syria and Iran's nuclear ambitions to a new leader in North Korea and rising tensions between China and its neighbors around the South China Sea. He's overseeing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan amid unrelenting Taliban attacks.
"For the first time in a decade, the urgent priority mission is not staring us in the face," said Michele Flournoy, who recently stepped down as the Pentagon's top policy official.
Panetta acknowledged the challenge of confronting myriad threats in an era of diminished resources. But he rejected criticism from those who say he lacks a vision or hasn't pressed hard enough for change.
"What kind of world are we going to be dealing with in the future?" he asked. "I think it's going to look a lot like what we're looking at now."
jaffeg@washpost.com
For most of the past year, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has stressed that the vast military complex over which he presides is at a "strategic turning point."
A decade of grinding guerrilla war is drawing to a close. Defense budgets are shrinking. The implication is that major changes are coming to the military.
So far, however, Panetta has cut few major weapons programs and steered clear of any bold moves aimed at remaking the military for this new era. The watchword for Panetta's tenure, senior defense officials said, has been "humble."
"He's told the service chiefs to be humble in their predictions of warfare," one senior official said.
Panetta's approach reflects a management style that throughout his career has placed a premium on consensus over major reforms and collegiality over bold thinking, said officials who have worked with him. "He has always run a happy, productive shop," said former ambassador James Dobbins, who worked closely with Panetta in the Clinton White House.
Because he has not spent his career in the national security realm, Panetta has tended to rely more heavily on the Pentagon's top generals for advice than his predecessors did, senior military officials said.
In an interview describing his defense strategy, Panetta said he has helped craft an approach that hedges bets against a range of potential enemies. "It really does provide maximum flexibility," he said. "The military is going to be smaller, but it is going to be more agile, more flexible and more deployable so that it moves fast and stays on the cutting edge of technology."
Panetta's vision is notable for some of the big questions left unanswered. A highly touted promise to shift the military's focus to Asiahas produced little in the way of major new deployments. Nine months after it was unveiled, there is scant evidence of how it will be implemented.
"This is a time when you would expect an intense focus on where we want to go and what we want to be," said Andrew Hoehn, a senior vice president at the Rand Corp. and a former Pentagon strategist. Hoehn said such a debate does not appear to be happening inside the Pentagon or in the presidential campaigns, which have largely ignored national security issues.
Although the war in Iraq has ended and troops are being withdrawn from Afghanistan, Panetta has not pressed the ground forces to conduct a tough and detailed examination of their performance in the two long and costly wars, said Eliot Cohen, a military historian at Johns Hopkins University and an adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign.
In recent years, Army and Marine Corps officers have tended to blame their struggles on the State Department and other federal agencies, which were unable to provide the necessary help to rebuild the war-torn countries' governments and economies.
Cohen said the finger-pointing has prevented the ground services from acknowledging their own shortcomings, such as their inability to produce a core of experts in the culture, politics, history and language of the two countries where they have spent most of the past decade fighting.
Panetta said he would like to see the military do more in this area. "I think we have to look at the lessons that we draw, particularly from these last 10 years of war," he said. "I'm not satisfied. I think more needs to be done."
The Obama administration's defense strategy, meanwhile, plays down the likelihood of the military fighting major countersinsurgency wars in the coming years. To that end, Panetta has ordered the Army to shrink to about 490,000 soldiers by 2017, a reduction of about 80,000 that will leave the force slightly larger than it was before Sept. 11, 2001.
A leadership contrast
A surprise pick to run the CIA in 2009, Panetta had spent most of his career as a congressman from California and a deficit hawk in the Clinton administration, including a stint as White House chief of staff.
Even after 21 / 2 years at the CIA and 14 months at the Pentagon, Panetta's speeches tend to steer clear of the kinds of detailed policy prescriptions and tough questions that were routine under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, his immediate predecessor.
"Do we really need 11 [aircraft] carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked a Navy audience in 2010. He also challenged the Marines to consider whether, in an era of increasingly precise cruise missiles, they would be called upon again to storm an enemy's shore - a question that cuts to the core of the Marines' identity. Gates's goal was to encourage lower-ranking officers to challenge military pieties.
By contrast, Panetta sometimes sounds more like a congressman representing the "Pentagon district" than the leader of the world's largest military. He talks frequently about his parents, who immigrated from Italy. And he regularly rails against the possibility that the Pentagon will have to absorb $500 billion in automatic cutsif Congress cannot agree on how to trim $1.2 trillion in government spending. The cuts, triggered under an arcane process known as sequestration, would come on top of an already mandated $487 billion in reductions.
"It's mindless, and it will . . . do incredible damage to our national defense," Panetta said last month in a speech in New York.
As he did during his days as a congressman, Panetta spends most weekends in California, commuting home on a military jet at a cost of more than $800,000 as of this spring, the latest figures available.
In the interview, Panetta played down the value of speeches that question the military's most prized programs or press its officers to embrace new or unpopular ideas.
"I don't think it's smart to challenge the services publicly," he said. "My style has always been to basically work with a team and have everybody feel part of the team."
Generals approve
The Pentagon's top generals say they appreciate Panetta's less-confrontational style.
"Gates was trying to challenge all of us," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, said in an interview. "Secretary Panetta just operates differently. He has been very transparent with the chiefs and allowed us to participate much more than we have in the past."
Panetta's backers note that he is leading the Pentagon at a different time than Gates, who presided over a growing defense budget and could afford to raise tough questions without worrying that they would be used as fodder for cuts.
Panetta also faces a greater array of threats than did Gates, whose time in the Pentagon was dominated by Iraq and Afghanistan.
The current list of crises stretches from growing unrest in Syria and Iran's nuclear ambitions to a new leader in North Korea and rising tensions between China and its neighbors around the South China Sea. He's overseeing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan amid unrelenting Taliban attacks.
"For the first time in a decade, the urgent priority mission is not staring us in the face," said Michele Flournoy, who recently stepped down as the Pentagon's top policy official.
Panetta acknowledged the challenge of confronting myriad threats in an era of diminished resources. But he rejected criticism from those who say he lacks a vision or hasn't pressed hard enough for change.
"What kind of world are we going to be dealing with in the future?" he asked. "I think it's going to look a lot like what we're looking at now."
jaffeg@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1047 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 4, 2012 Tuesday
Regional Edition
Why the political party conventions are still key
BYLINE: Brad Plumer
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 1339 words
According to Julian Zelizer:
"The most important political party conventions in U.S. history arguably occurred in 1860, when the Democratic Party split into two over slavery and Republicans selected Abraham Lincoln on the third ballot. In the months that followed, the country headed toward secession and war.
There's been nothing nearly as dramatic since, especially in the modern era. Nowadays, the nominees are known well in advance, picked in primaries and caucuses. . . . Most of the speeches and events are scripted (with the exception of Clint Eastwood, perhaps). Conventions have mostly become three-day commercials for the two major political parties."
And yet, says Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University, party conventions are still extremely important.
Brad Plumer: We're no longer at the point where presidential nominees are actually selected at the party conventions. So could it be fair to say that these things no longer matter?
JZ: Yeah, for a long time before the 1960s, they were actually the places where the candidates were selected, where party bosses still mattered, where there was an opportunity to question and challenge the different candidates. That changed in the late 1960s and early '70s, with the whole idea being that primaries and caucuses would allow non-party bosses to decide who the nominee was. So now they mainly just serve the function of showcasing the presidential and vice presidential nominees and the party. These are tightly scripted commercials. But that's still valuable. It's a moment when more people are watching, when the parties can explain what their candidate is about for more than 30-second spots.
The other place where I think conventions still have value is that they're a test of the nominees. One important thing that presidents do is speak. We're looking for someone who can give a very good speech, during a military emergency or an economic crisis. There's something to seeing Mitt Romney and Barack Obama step into the spotlight and have to do something that's a little more lengthy than a quick response to the reporter.
BP: Talk about some of the more important speeches that have helped do this.
JZ: One of the more politically smart convention speeches came from Ronald Reagan in 1980. He was facing a Republican Party that was far more divided than it is today. You had social conservatives, neoconservatives, budget hawks. And so in his convention speech, Reagan very skillfully brought a lot of these things together. You could see in his speech how he was going to hold this coalition in the fall, how he would defeat the Democrats. He really laid out the themes for his presidency.
This is going back further, but Franklin Roosevelt did something similar in his acceptance speech in 1932. He introduced the New Deal, he started to outline how government would start intervening in agriculture and the urban crisis and unemployment and used it as a road map. So whereas Reagan used his speech to hold his political coalition together, FDR actually outlined his governing agenda.
Then in 1988, George H.W. Bush gave a very effective speech at the convention. He was seen as a weak candidate, but he gave a very powerful speech that helped him defeat Michael Dukakis in the fall. Of course, that speech also contained the promise not to raise taxes, which came back to haunt him when he signed a tax deal two years later. So that speech turned out to matter a great deal - it was held up as proof that he had betrayed conservative ideals.
BP: And there are plenty of people who have given important speeches even if they never went on to become president. Barry Goldwater in 1964, for instance.
JZ: Absolutely. In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater makes his speech about extremism being a virtue and about his party returning to conservative principles. It's a disaster for that election. But it became inspirational, and the speech was absolutely crucial in the GOP's move to the right.
The same goes for 1948. This is still in the pre-scripted era, but Hubert Humphrey is an unknown guy running for Senate for Minnesota, and at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, he calls on his party to support civil rights. He tells all the Southern delegates that the time has come to support legislation, that they can't keep talking about states' rights. That was seen as an important moment when liberal Northerners within the party finally stood up on the issue. And some Southerners ended up bolting the party that year, led by Strom Thurmond.
And then one last one was Ted Kennedy in 1980. He lost the nomination to Jimmy Carter, but he still makes an impassioned speech about the Democratic Party and the need not to move to the center, he talks about the traditions of the party and sailing against the wind. Defend common people from business. For many liberals that was a real rallying cry, it gave them juice for the decade to come.
Plus the conventions can help showcase young talent in the party. The obvious example is 2004, when Barack Obama gave the keynote address and introduced himself to the country.
BP: So where did Romney's acceptance speech on Thursday fit into this? Are there any good historical analogues?
JZ: I thought it was a good speech for him. He's not Ronald Reagan, he's not Ted Kennedy, he's not bringing that kind of firepower. It's not like Goldwater laying out a dramatic argument for where the party needs to go. The best analogy might actually be Bill Clinton in 1996, where the one thing Clinton did with his acceptance speech was try to offer voters a sense for why he can win moderate votes, why he represented the new political middle. Romney was trying to do that last night, appealing to independent voters and Obama supporters. He was asking people to rethink whom they voted for last time around.
BP: Now, some political scientists have argued that the "bump" in the polls that conventions give candidates seems to be fading out over time. Does that suggest conventions are becoming less relevant? Or are the polls missing something?
JZ: Even a small, short bump can be worth something. It can help reenergize a campaign after a long primary. You could see by the end of the summer, Romney looked tired, he was getting beat up, and if the reaction to the Republican convention is relatively good, that's not unimportant at all. So there's more to look at than just the polls. A convention can help shape the narrative of the campaign. That's difficult to do over the summer, when people's interest in politics starts diminishing, so this is a way to recapture that attention. . . .
Conventions [also] offer a great fundraising opportunity, with all these Republicans and Democrats in one place.
BP: What about party platforms? Do those matter at all?
JZ: I'm not sure about that. There's often not much correlation between what's in the party platform and what happens with the nominee or party. I think the debate over the platform can sometimes be more important. That debate gets coverage, and that's been true going back to the 1950s and 1960s, when there were a lot of platform debates over how to talk about civil rights. These debates provide a way for reporters to think about where the party is and to discuss various issues.
BP: And what about the conventions themselves? Are these going to stick around for years?
JZ:I could see these events becoming a lot shorter in the years ahead. That could either happen because parties see that it works fine if you have one less day of activities, or because of a drop in contributions or budget cuts. . . . [Note: The federal government paid about $36 million in 2012 to fund the party conventions.]
And the drop in television coverage will probably also have an impact. The nature of conventions will change if the networks are only showing a little bit of each day. Parties will inevitably start focusing on just a few speeches. The conventions will become less important at showcasing new talent.
Brad Plumer
Transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1048 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
September 3, 2012 Monday
Obama Ad Reprises Theme That Romney Would Hurt Middle Class
BYLINE: JEREMY PETERS
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 241 words
HIGHLIGHT: A new Obama ad says Mitt Romney's tax plan would help the rich at the expense of the middle class.
As President Obama kicks off his convention week in Charlotte, N.C., his campaign has a new ad that doubles down on his charges that Mitt Romney's economic policies would harm the middle class.
"The middle class is carrying a heavy load in America," the commercial says as images of a forlorn-looking mother and a worker in a hard hat appear on the screen. "But Mitt Romney doesn't see it." A picture of Mr. Romney flashing a wide grin is shown, along with a picture of a stately brick mansion.
"So, Romney hits the middle class harder and gives millionaires and even bigger break. Is that the way forward for America?"
The ad repeats the claim -- made often by Mr. Obama and his allies -- that Mr. Romney's economic plans would result in a tax increase for middle-class families while lowering taxes on people in the highest income brackets. A studyby the left-leaning Brookings Institution found that to be the case.
The Romney campaign has sought to discredit that study, noting that its author served on the president's Council of Economic Advisers.
A Romney campaign spokeswoman sought to shift the focus toward the state of the economy since Mr. Obama took office, noting that "the middle class has been crushed under President Obama, but he doesn't seem to get it."
"Gas prices have doubled, incomes have dropped, poverty is headed toward 50-year highs and chronic unemployment is at unprecedented levels," said the spokeswoman, Amanda Henneberg.
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1049 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 3, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
Sifting through both sides' Medi-scare tactics Sifting through both sides' Medi-scare tactics
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 2025 words
"Senator McCain would pay for part of his [health-care] plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare, $882 billion worth. . . . It ain't right."
- Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, as seen in a Mitt Romney campaign ad
We returned from vacation to find lots of questions from readers about Medicare. The campaigns have been engaged in a tit-for-tat war of words that, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, appears to have _blankresulted in a draw so far. We will not delve into the details of those ads except to note with amusement a new Romney ad that _blankaccurately quotes Obama from four years ago. Perhaps one reason why the Medicare fight has resulted in a draw is because both parties have played rhetorical games with the old-age health program.
Democrats in 1996 effectively attacked Republicans for proposing "cuts" in Medicare, but then after the election cut a deal with Republicans allowing some of those same reductions. In 2008, Obama claimed John McCain, if he became president, would make "drastic cuts in Medicare" to fund his health program. Then Republicans turned the tables in 2010, attacking spending reductions implemented by Democrats to help fund the new health-care law.
Who wouldn't be confused? Both sides profess to be concerned about the financial health of the program but then bash each other with scary rhetoric in the very next election.Here are some answers to key questions that have arisen in recent weeks.
Did President Obamacut $700 billion from Medicare?
The current Medicare system, in place since the mid-1960s, is essentially a government-run health-care program, with hospital and doctors' fees paid by the government, though beneficiaries also pay premiums for some services as well as deductibles and co-insurance.
During the primaries, Republicans _blankused to claim that Obama cut Medicare by $500 billion. So how did it balloon to a $700 billion figure? There is a simple explanation. The Congressional Budget Office last month _blankissued a new estimate based on a different - and later - 10-year time frame (2013 to 2022). Of course, Republicans decided to pick the biggest number possible. But, as we have repeatedly explained, Medicare spending is not being reduced. It still goes up year after year.
The $700 billion figure (technically, $716 billion) comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. Moreover, the savings mostly are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
The proposed reduction in spending actually strengthens the long-term health of the Medicare program, according to Medicare trustees reports. And spending on Medicare over that 10-year period would still be $7.8 trillion.
In fact, House Republicans adopted many of these same cuts in their own budget. Both parties agree that controls are needed on Medicare spending - that is the only way that the Medicare trust funds last longer - but they disagree over the best path forward. We have generally given Republicans two Pinocchios for such claims.
Did Obama use Medicare savings to fund 'Obamacare'?
All government money is fungible, but depending on how this claim is phrased, one could certainly make this rhetorical point. In the health-care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. _blankAs we have previously examined, this sort of "double-counting" accounting has been used by both parties for decades. The Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
Under the concept of the unified budget, money that is collected by the federal government for whatever purpose (such as Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes) is spent on whatever bills are coming due at that time. Social Security and Medicare will get a credit for taxes collected that are not immediately spent on Social Security, but those taxes are quickly devoted to other federal spending.
In sum, the health-care bill actually puts Medicare on a more solid financial footing. Also, the health-care law improved some benefits for seniors, such as making preventive care free and closing a gap in prescription drug coverage known as the "doughnut hole" - improvements that Republicans would repeal.
Is Medicare going 'bankrupt'?
Nope. This is an old song played by both parties. There are different parts of Medicare,_blank much of which is paid from general revenue and premiums. Part A, which pays hospitals, has a "trust fund," made up of special-issue Treasury bonds, that always seems to be _blankon the edge of running dry. But even so, the payroll tax could pay most estimated expenditures for decades. And does anyone doubt Congress would not step in and fill any gaps? Will Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare force seniors to pay $6,400 more than they do today?
This is a Democratic attack line, based on old data concerning an earlier version of Ryan's plan. (Sometimes Obama refers to the "original" plan in his remarks.) In July, _blankwe gave Obama two Pinocchios for making a similar claim.
Readers should always be wary of dire predictions far in the future. The $6,400 figure refers to analysis of _blanka CBO estimate of a different and less generous version of Ryan's plan in the year 2022; the CBO made no such estimates of the new version, _blanksaying it did "not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects for the specified path of Medicare spending" but that "beneficiaries might face higher costs." The new Ryan plan, moreover, retains the option of traditional Medicare, while the old version did not.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read more Fact Checker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker.
"Senator McCain would pay for part of his [health-care] plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare, $882 billion worth. . . . It ain't right."
- Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, as seen in a Mitt Romney campaign ad
We returned from vacation to find lots of questions from readers about Medicare. The campaigns have been engaged in a tit-for-tat war of words that, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, appears to have _blankresulted in a draw so far. We will not delve into the details of those ads except to note with amusement a new Romney ad that _blankaccurately quotes Obama from four years ago. Perhaps one reason why the Medicare fight has resulted in a draw is because both parties have played rhetorical games with the old-age health program.
Democrats in 1996 effectively attacked Republicans for proposing "cuts" in Medicare, but then after the election cut a deal with Republicans allowing some of those same reductions. In 2008, Obama claimed John McCain, if he became president, would make "drastic cuts in Medicare" to fund his health program. Then Republicans turned the tables in 2010, attacking spending reductions implemented by Democrats to help fund the new health-care law.
Who wouldn't be confused? Both sides profess to be concerned about the financial health of the program but then bash each other with scary rhetoric in the very next election.Here are some answers to key questions that have arisen in recent weeks.
Did President Obamacut $700 billion from Medicare?
The current Medicare system, in place since the mid-1960s, is essentially a government-run health-care program, with hospital and doctors' fees paid by the government, though beneficiaries also pay premiums for some services as well as deductibles and co-insurance.
During the primaries, Republicans _blankused to claim that Obama cut Medicare by $500 billion. So how did it balloon to a $700 billion figure? There is a simple explanation. The Congressional Budget Office last month _blankissued a new estimate based on a different - and later - 10-year time frame (2013 to 2022). Of course, Republicans decided to pick the biggest number possible. But, as we have repeatedly explained, Medicare spending is not being reduced. It still goes up year after year.
The $700 billion figure (technically, $716 billion) comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. Moreover, the savings mostly are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
The proposed reduction in spending actually strengthens the long-term health of the Medicare program, according to Medicare trustees reports. And spending on Medicare over that 10-year period would still be $7.8 trillion.
In fact, House Republicans adopted many of these same cuts in their own budget. Both parties agree that controls are needed on Medicare spending - that is the only way that the Medicare trust funds last longer - but they disagree over the best path forward. We have generally given Republicans two Pinocchios for such claims.
Did Obama use Medicare savings to fund 'Obamacare'?
All government money is fungible, but depending on how this claim is phrased, one could certainly make this rhetorical point. In the health-care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. _blankAs we have previously examined, this sort of "double-counting" accounting has been used by both parties for decades. The Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
Under the concept of the unified budget, money that is collected by the federal government for whatever purpose (such as Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes) is spent on whatever bills are coming due at that time. Social Security and Medicare will get a credit for taxes collected that are not immediately spent on Social Security, but those taxes are quickly devoted to other federal spending.
In sum, the health-care bill actually puts Medicare on a more solid financial footing. Also, the health-care law improved some benefits for seniors, such as making preventive care free and closing a gap in prescription drug coverage known as the "doughnut hole" - improvements that Republicans would repeal.
Is Medicare going 'bankrupt'?
Nope. This is an old song played by both parties. There are different parts of Medicare,_blank much of which is paid from general revenue and premiums. Part A, which pays hospitals, has a "trust fund," made up of special-issue Treasury bonds, that always seems to be _blankon the edge of running dry. But even so, the payroll tax could pay most estimated expenditures for decades. And does anyone doubt Congress would not step in and fill any gaps? Will Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare force seniors to pay $6,400 more than they do today?
This is a Democratic attack line, based on old data concerning an earlier version of Ryan's plan. (Sometimes Obama refers to the "original" plan in his remarks.) In July, _blankwe gave Obama two Pinocchios for making a similar claim.
Readers should always be wary of dire predictions far in the future. The $6,400 figure refers to analysis of _blanka CBO estimate of a different and less generous version of Ryan's plan in the year 2022; the CBO made no such estimates of the new version, _blanksaying it did "not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects for the specified path of Medicare spending" but that "beneficiaries might face higher costs." The new Ryan plan, moreover, retains the option of traditional Medicare, while the old version did not.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read more Fact Checker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1050 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 3, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
Eight Questions
BYLINE: By Dan Balz
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 2125 words
1What is President Obama's most important objective?
Mitt Romney began his convention in Tampa last week with a long to-do list. President Obama's is shorter but no less daunting. This is not Denver 2008. There probably won't be any Greek columns when he speaks in the stadium Thursday night. The president's task, after almost four years in office, will be to persuade voters disappointed by what has happened that he knows how to make the next term better than the first.
There are some obvious objectives. He'll want to keep forcing the election to be a choice and not just a referendum on his record. He'll want his convention to draw sharp contrasts with Romney. But some Democrats say the Obama campaign has already done a good job of that during the summer. They believe that it's time for Obama to focus on the future.
Republicans see Obama in a tough spot. They argue that voters believe that Obama over-promised in 2008 and didn't deliver. As GOP strategist Chris Henick put it, Obama has "fatigued the bully pulpit" and needs to change that. Other Republicans say he has to answer the question posed by Paul Ryan, the GOP vice-presidential nominee, at the Tampa convention: Without a change in leadership, why will families be better off in the next four years?
Obama has accomplishments to point to: The auto bailout has helped turn around the auto industry. He's never sold his health-care program, but he can try to show how things will be better as that law continues to take effect. He made the decision to send a SEAL team to kill Osama bin Laden. But he also has to persuade voters that everything he did has helped set the foundation for a true recovery.
2How can Obama articulate a convincing defense of his economic record?
The defense will start by stating the obvious: that Obama inherited a terrible economic situation, so bad that a majority of Americans still blame the current state of the economy on former president George W. Bush. But at the Republican convention in Tampa, Bush's brother Jeb called out the president, challenging him to stop blaming his predecessor and start taking responsibility.
Obama will be defending a record that has kept unemployment above 8 percent for 42 consecutive months. Long-term unemployment is having a corrosive effect on the lives of many Americans. Although there are some bright spots - the housing sector has shown signs of life recently - voters aren't convinced that a real recovery has taken hold.
It's often been said that claiming things could have been worse is hardly an effective message, but Obama's team has often made that argument. Had Obama not done what he did, they say, the country could have plunged into a depression. But what hurts Obama now is the persistence of high unemployment and slow growth.
Explaining why is not going to be easy. Instead, a number of Democrats say, this is why Obama must draw a contrast with Romney. Tad Devine, a top adviser in the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry, suggested that Obama steal a line from Ronald Reagan and say as the Gipper did, "Our opponents began this campaign hoping that America has a poor memory. Well, let's take them on a little stroll down memory lane." Of course, Reagan was dealing with a recovery with far higher growth rates than those of today.
One top Democratic strategist said, "His most convincing defense of his economic record is contrast and comparison with the other side's proposals moving forward. If he is defending his record, he is not doing what he needs to do."
3Will Bill Clinton overshadow everyone else?
If you don't know the answer to this question, you don't know Bill Clinton. The former president will overshadow everything and everyone - at least for the brief time he is on stage in Charlotte. But he is savvy enough to know that he is there in a supporting role to help win Obama's reelection. He won't try to overshadow the president, but he'll take up plenty of space.
One measure of the potential impact of Clinton's speech is the fact that his successor, George W. Bush, wasn't ever on the stage in Tampa. Bush would be of no help to Romney. Clinton is revered by Democrats and still able to appeal to independents.
When Obama has asked him, Clinton has delivered a more effective defense of the president's record than virtually anyone else, including at times the president. They once were rivals, when Hillary Rodham Clinton was running for president, but they've found reasons to become allies. Clinton was accused of undermining Obama when he praised Romney's business record earlier this year, but there's no doubt that he will have Obama's back in Charlotte.
He embodies something Obama needs to get across to people, an economic success story of a Democratic president. Republicans argue that some of Clinton's chief accomplishments - welfare reform and a balanced budget - appealed to the middle of the electorate, while Obama's agenda has appealed only to his base.
Clinton's critique of the Republican agenda will be critical in helping persuade skeptical voters that Obama is still a better bet for the next four years than Romney. But overshadow the president? Obama is no slouch when it comes to big speeches. However Clinton performs, the big speech in Charlotte will still be Obama's on Thursday night.
4Will Vice President Biden lead the attacks on Mitt Romney?
It would be a surprise if he didn't attack, given the fact that vice presidents are generally assigned that role. But he won't be the only one. Given what the Obama campaign has been doing all summer, attacks likely will start with the opening night program Tuesday and carry through to Thursday night.
As one Democrat said, if the Democrats wait for Biden on Thursday to lead the attacks, they will have wasted the first two nights. Republicans Whit Ayres and Jon McHenry predict that every speaker, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, will attack Romney, "which is probably a mistake."
Biden obviously has another role and it's one reason he was picked to be on the ticket in 2008. He speaks to a constituency that long has been resistant to the president: white working-class voters. Biden speaks their language and will try again to be a validator for Obama with these voters.
The vice president, of course, can be an unguided missile, thought it's doubtful he'll be given the kind of freedom that the Romney campaign gave to Clint Eastwood in Tampa to ad lib his way through his assigned time. Biden can speak extemporaneously and at length about a lot of subjects, but the stakes are high enough - for Obama's reelection and Biden's political standing - that he'll likely see this as a time to choose his sharp words carefully.
5What is Michelle Obama's role at the convention?
The first lady was a big star in Denver four years ago and remains widely admired. Like Ann Romney, she can help remind people of Obama as a husband and father and warm up someone who can seem cool and distant.
"The president's role is to present a high-altitude vision for the country," said Democratic strategist Nathan Daschle. "Michelle Obama, on the other hand, can connect us on an emotional level to the president. Barack Obama is academic and a bit removed. This is a weakness as much as it's a strength. Michelle Obama is much warmer and can provide that level of emotional connection we don't get from the president."
Michelle Obama can help in other ways. With the Obama campaign trying to make the gender gap as big as possible, she can counter appeals to women at the Republican convention by some of the female speakers, though Ann Romney will be off limits.
The first lady can also play a big role in helping to energize the base. She is a keeper of the 2008 flame. Democrats suffer from a potential enthusiasm gap, which is just one of the ways in which 2012 is different from 2008. Whatever Michelle Obama can do to try to get Democrats once again fired up and ready to go will be a measure of the success of her speech.
6What is Obama's message for white working-class voters - or should he not worry about them?
Obama can't afford to ignore or take for granted any voters. "We can't write off any constituency, certainly not one that large," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "We won't win those voters, but there is a difference between losing by 20 points and losing by 40 points. The message is simple: Mitt Romney is a symbol of everything that's wrong with our economy."
Democrats have been losing white working-class voters for years, and they seem particularly resistant to Obama's appeals. He struggled with them in many of the industrial-state primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. He lost them in the general election, and he has been trailing significantly among these voters in polls all spring and summer.
But by winning big majorities of African Americans, Latinos, younger single women and very well-educated voters, Obama can afford to lose the white working-class vote. He just can't get wiped out with that constituency.
To prevent further erosion, the president needs to make his case that, whatever these voters may think of him, Romney would be worse. It's a classic class-warfare message wrapped in the rhetoric of moving forward as the one to rebuild the economy.
By attacking Romney all summer for his record at Bain Capital, the Obama campaign is trying turn the Republican nominee into the guy who fires people. But Obama needs to do more than just try to disqualify Romney. He'll be on the offensive, but will he have a credible message to struggling middle-class voters?
7Will attacks or positive messaging persuade undecided voters to support Obama?
Obama's campaign has been on the attack all summer - in its advertising, its messages of the day, its conference calls and its tweets - in an effort to disqualify Romney as an alternative. Republicans say that's because Obama can't defend his economic record and has nothing of note to be positive about.
Voters say they dislike negative ads but studies show that people process the information in those commercials quickly and often get valuable information from them. Voters dislike the worst of the ads they see, particularly those that are too personal. But contrast ads can do more to move voters than personal attacks or purely positive ads.
Still, undecided independent voters are turned off by the discord in Washington and the negative tone of politics generally. Obama has been effective in drawing contrasts with what Romney has advocated, but can't risk losing his advantage on likability. As one Democrat put it, "His largest asset four years ago was being thought of above politics and truly post-partisan. He needs to recapture some of that notion and leave the hard-hitting stuff to others."
8Who will be jockeying in Charlotte for attention for 2016?
Because this is Obama's last campaign, win or lose, one of the subthemes of the convention in Charlotte will be the speculation about who will lead the party four years from now.
In Tampa, there was considerable focus on the rising generation of Republicans who, if Romney loses, will be competing for their party's nomination in 2016. Republicans will have a large cast of younger leaders from which to choose.
Democrats have a different dynamic. The conversation in Charlotte will start with questions about two members of the administration: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Biden.
Clinton has said she will leave her post at the end of the year and has given no indication that she wants to run for president again. But she'll be under tremendous pressure to do so. Biden has wanted to be president since he first ran in 1988. Until he says he won't run, he, too, could block some younger Democrats.
If neither of them decides to run, then the list could be long: governors, senators, other members of the Cabinet, even Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, if his keynote address lights up the arena the way Obama's did in Boston eight years ago.
"Charlotte will be one-stop shopping for the operatives, activists, donors and other core players that will help some of these potential candidates establish themselves and get traction in the invisible primary that begins on November 7th," Democratic strategist Michael Feldman said.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1051 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 3, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
'Build that' remark echoes 'Build that' remark echoes
BYLINE: Amy Gardner
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2091 words
CHARLOTTE - After being pummeled for days at the Republican National Convention for his remark that business owners "didn't build that," President Obama heads to the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina this week facing mounting questions about how he will respond to charges that he is hostile to free enterprise.
On Sunday, senior Obama advisers suggested that they will not address the anti-business allegations directly but will instead try to turn the tables on their GOP rivals by accusing them of being dishonest about what Obama meant. David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said in an interview Sunday on ABC News that Republican Mitt Romney's campaign is engaged in a broader pattern of dishonesty and is "built on a tripod of lies." Plouffe cited accusations that Obama has gutted the work requirement for welfare and "raided" Medicare to pay for the nation's new health-care law as other examples of untruths coming from the GOP.
The Obama team thinks that it has effectively dealt with the "build that" attacks and that the issue is overblown - the "drill, baby, drill" of 2012, a rallying cry for the right but ultimately one with limited appeal in the broader electorate.
Nevertheless, there are signs that they see a vulnerability. Obama has not repeated the words that sparked the controversy, and he has toned down the broader argument - that government help is essential to business success - in the six weeks since he ad-libbed the line near the end of a long campaign swing. His speeches have been shorter, with fewer references to wealthy Americans. He is more cautious about portraying the choice that he quite forcefully described that night between Romney's worldview and his own.
Adviser David Axelrod, traveling with the president in Colorado on Sunday, said the public will come away from the convention "with a very clear sense" of Obama's values, including his faith in private enterprise.
"It's striking to me how enamored they are with that theme and how ineffectual it's been," Axelrod said. "You look at the polling and they've spent millions and millions of dollars on it and it may thrill their base. But it hasn't expanded their base because people understand that the view they're imputing to the president isn't his view. I don't feel like we have to respond to their dry holes." Obama campaign advisers say internal polling shows that the GOP attacks have not shifted public opinion.
The "build that" accusations reached a fever pitch last week at the Republican convention.
Obama made the comment in July in Roanoke, saying: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Republicans have typically quoted only the last part - "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" - prompting most independent fact checkers to conclude that the line was taken out of context. That's Obama's argument, too; his advisers cite numerous speeches with similar language about the important role government plays paying for roads and bridges and other infrastructure to help businesses grow and prosper.
Republicans say that, even in context, it's not clear whether Obama is referring to businesses or infrastructure when he states, "you didn't build that." They say the overall speech reinforces a narrative about Obama - that he places too much faith in government - that resonates with voters.
"We need a president who will say to a small businesswoman, 'Congratulations!' " said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), one of several speakers to cite the line in Tampa.
The tactic has certainly resonated with the Republican grass roots. Throughout the GOP convention, and even sporadically at Obama rallies across the country, activists have displayed "I Built That" T-shirts and signs. On Sunday, a huge banner on an airplane hangar greeted the president in Sioux City, Iowa, where the airport code is SUX: "Obama Welcome to SUX. And We Did Build This." During the original 42-minute speech in Roanoke on July 13, Obama used no teleprompter, instead relying on notes and at times injecting lengthy and impromptu riffs about the role government has played in building this nation. He talked of an elderly veteran who relied on the G.I. Bill to go to college and a single mother who got an education with grants. He criticized Republicans for wanting to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of government programs that benefit the middle class. But in this instance, he lingered on the point.
He blamed the GOP for what he described as undermining the American contract that allows all people to succeed if they're willing to work hard. He talked of "rich people," "millionaires" and "wealthy investors." At times he seemed to lecture his audience about the stark choice he sees in this election, waiting for the crowd to quiet so he could continue.
Obama advisers say the president did not seek to make news that night in Roanoke, and that his message has grown sharper since then because that's what happens over the course of a campaign. They say the speech came at the end of a long day - he did appear tired, and his voice was hoarse - and say if he'd intended to try out a new message, it would have happened at his first stop of the tour.
That evening, Obama spoke nearly twice as long as he has in more recent campaign rallies - a tendency, his advisers said, when he is fatigued. It was a hot, sticky night; more than 20 people in the crowd required medical attention, and at one point, even Obama noticed from the stage, advising supporters to "make sure you're drinking water."
Republicans seem to have noticed that Obama was tired, too. "They're running this guy ragged," GOP strategist Karl Rove said in an interview, adding that the president's "normal filters shut down." The implication was that the GOP will be watching for more such instances for the duration of the campaign.
gardnera@washpost.com
David Nakamura and Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.
CHARLOTTE - After being pummeled for days at the Republican convention for his remark that business owners "didn't build that," President Obama heads to the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina this week facing mounting questions about how he will respond to charges that he is hostile to free enterprise.
On Sunday, senior Obama advisers suggested they will not address the anti-business allegations directly but will instead try to turn the tables on their Republican rivals by accusing them of being dishonest about what Obama meant. David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said in an interview Sunday on ABC News that Republican Mitt Romney's campaign is engaged in a broader pattern of dishonesty and "built on a tripod of lies." Plouffe cited accusations that Obama has gutted the work requirement in welfare reform and "raided" Medicare to pay for the health-care law as other examples of untruths coming from the GOP.
The Obama team thinks that it has effectively dealt with the "build that" attacks and that the issue is overblown - the "drill, baby, drill" of 2012, a rallying cry for the right but ultimately one with limited appeal in the broader electorate.
Nevertheless, there are signs they see a vulnerability. Obama has not repeated the words that sparked the controversy, and he has toned down the broader argument - that government help is essential to business success - in the six weeks since he ad-libbed the line near the end of a long campaign swing. His speeches have been shorter, with fewer references to wealthy Americans. He is more cautious about portraying the choice that he quite forcefully described that night between Romney's worldview and his own.
Adviser David Axelrod, traveling with Obama in Colorado on Sunday, said the public will come away from the convention "with a very clear sense" of Obama's values, including the president's faith in private enterprise.
"It's striking to me how enamored they are with that theme and how ineffectual it's been," Axelrod said. "You look at the polling and they've spent millions and millions of dollars on it and it may thrill their base. But it hasn't expanded their base because people understand that the view they're imputing to the president isn't his view. I don't feel like we have to respond to their dry holes." Obama campaign advisers say internal polling shows that the GOP attacks have not shifted public opinion.
Pressure has been growing for Obama to address the "build that" accusations since they reached a fever pitch last week at the Republican National Convention.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help," Obama said that July night in Roanoke. "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Republicans have typically quoted only the last part - "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" - prompting most independent fact checkers to conclude that the line was taken out of context. That's Obama's argument, too; his advisers cite numerous speeches with similar language about the important role government plays paying for roads and bridges and other infrastructure to help businesses grow and prosper.
Republicans say that, even in context, it's not clear whether Obama is referring to businesses or infrastructure when he states, "you didn't build that." They say the overall speech reinforces a narrative about Obama - that he places too much faith in government - that resonates with voters.
"We need a president who will say to a small businesswoman, 'Congratulations!' " said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), one of several speakers to cite the line in Tampa.
The tactic has certainly resonated with the Republican grass roots; throughout the GOP convention, and even sporadically at Obama rallies across the country, activists have displayed "I Built That" T-shirts and signs. On Sunday, a huge banner on an airplane hangar greeted the president in Sioux City, Iowa, where the airport code is SUX: "Obama Welcome to SUX. And We Did Build This."During the original 42-minute speech in Roanoke on July 13, Obama used no teleprompter, instead relying on notes and at times injecting lengthy and impromptu riffs about the role government has played in building this nation. He talked of an elderly veteran who relied on the G.I. Bill to go to college and a single mom who got an education with grants. He criticized Republicans for wanting to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of government programs that benefit the middle class. But in this instance, he lingered on the point.
He blamed the GOP for what he described as undermining the American contract that allows all people to succeed if they're willing to work hard. He talked of "rich people," "millionaires" and "wealthy investors." At times he seemed to lecture his audience about the stark choice he sees in this election, waiting for the crowd to quiet so he could continue.
Obama advisers say the president did not seek to make news that night in Roanoke, and that his message has grown sharper since then because that's what happens over the course of a campaign. They say the speech came at the end of a long day - he did appear tired, and his voice was hoarse - and say if he'd intended to try out a new message, it would have happened at his first stop of the tour.
That evening, Obama spoke nearly twice as long as he has in more recent campaign rallies - a tendency, his advisers said, when he is fatigued. It was a hot, sticky night; more than 20 people in the crowd required medical attention, and at one point, even Obama noticed from the stage, advising supporters to "make sure you're drinking water."
Republicans seem to have noticed that Obama was tired, too. "They're running this guy ragged," GOP strategist Karl Rove said in an interview, adding that the president's "normal filters shut down." The implication was that the GOP will be watching for more such instances for the duration of the campaign.
gardnera@washpost.com
David Nakamura and Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1052 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
September 3, 2012 Monday 1:18 PM EST
Ad watch: Obama's pitch for the middle class;
New Obama ad courts middle class support.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 73 words
The ad, "Heavy Load":
What it says:The middle class is carrying a heavy load in America. But Mitt Romneydoesn'tsee it. Under the Romney plan, a middle class family will pay an average of up to $2,000 more a year in taxes.
What it means: A vote for Romney is not a vote for the middle class.
Who will see it: Voters inColorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1053 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 3, 2012 Monday
Every Edition
Eight Questions
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 2047 words
1What is President Obama's most important objective?
Mitt Romney began his convention in Tampa last week with a long to-do list. President Obama's is shorter but no less daunting. This is not Denver 2008. There probably won't be any Greek columns when he speaks in the stadium Thursday night. The president's task, after almost four years in office, will be to persuade voters disappointed by what has happened that he knows how to make the next term better than the first.
There are some obvious objectives. He'll want to keep forcing the election to be a choice and not just a referendum on his record. He'll want his convention to draw sharp contrasts with Romney. But some Democrats say the Obama campaign has already done a good job of that during the summer. They believe that it's time for Obama to focus on the future.
Republicans see Obama in a tough spot. They argue that voters believe that Obama over-promised in 2008 and didn't deliver. As GOP strategist Chris Henick put it, Obama has "fatigued the bully pulpit" and needs to change that. Other Republicans say he has to answer the question posed by Paul Ryan, the GOP vice-presidential nominee, at the Tampa convention: Without a change in leadership, why will families be better off in the next four years?
Obama has accomplishments to point to: The auto bailout has helped turn around the auto industry. He's never sold his health-care program, but he can try to show how things will be better as that law continues to take effect. He made the decision to send a SEAL team to kill Osama bin Laden. But he also has to persuade voters that everything he did has helped set the foundation for a true recovery.
2How can Obama articulate a convincing defense of his economic record?
The defense will start by stating the obvious: that Obama inherited a terrible economic situation, so bad that a majority of Americans still blame the current state of the economy on former president George W. Bush. But at the Republican convention in Tampa, Bush's brother Jeb called out the president, challenging him to stop blaming his predecessor and start taking responsibility.
Obama will be defending a record that has kept unemployment above 8 percent for 42 consecutive months. Long-term unemployment is having a corrosive effect on the lives of many Americans. Although there are some bright spots - the housing sector has shown signs of life recently - voters aren't convinced that a real recovery has taken hold.
It's often been said that claiming things could have been worse is hardly an effective message, but Obama's team has often made that argument. Had Obama not done what he did, they say, the country could have plunged into a depression. But what hurts Obama now is the persistence of high unemployment and slow growth.
Explaining why is not going to be easy. Instead, a number of Democrats say, this is why Obama must draw a contrast with Romney. Tad Devine, a top adviser in the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry, suggested that Obama steal a line from Ronald Reagan and say as the Gipper did, "Our opponents began this campaign hoping that America has a poor memory. Well, let's take them on a little stroll down memory lane." Of course, Reagan was dealing with a recovery with far higher growth rates than those of today.
One top Democratic strategist said, "His most convincing defense of his economic record is contrast and comparison with the other side's proposals moving forward. If he is defending his record, he is not doing what he needs to do."
3Will Bill Clinton overshadow everyone else?
If you don't know the answer to this question, you don't know Bill Clinton. The former president will overshadow everything and everyone - at least for the brief time he is on stage in Charlotte. But he is savvy enough to know that he is there in a supporting role to help win Obama's reelection. He won't try to overshadow the president, but he'll take up plenty of space.
One measure of the potential impact of Clinton's speech is the fact that his successor, George W. Bush, wasn't ever on the stage in Tampa. Bush would be of no help to Romney. Clinton is revered by Democrats and still able to appeal to independents.
When Obama has asked him, Clinton has delivered a more effective defense of the president's record than virtually anyone else, including at times the president. They once were rivals, when Hillary Rodham Clinton was running for president, but they've found reasons to become allies. Clinton was accused of undermining Obama when he praised Romney's business record earlier this year, but there's no doubt that he will have Obama's back in Charlotte.
He embodies something Obama needs to get across to people, an economic success story of a Democratic president. Republicans argue that some of Clinton's chief accomplishments - welfare reform and a balanced budget - appealed to the middle of the electorate, while Obama's agenda has appealed only to his base.
Clinton's critique of the Republican agenda will be critical in helping persuade skeptical voters that Obama is still a better bet for the next four years than Romney. But overshadow the president? Obama is no slouch when it comes to big speeches. However Clinton performs, the big speech in Charlotte will still be Obama's on Thursday night.
4Will Vice President Biden lead the attacks on Mitt Romney?
It would be a surprise if he didn't attack, given the fact that vice presidents are generally assigned that role. But he won't be the only one. Given what the Obama campaign has been doing all summer, attacks likely will start with the opening night program Tuesday and carry through to Thursday night.
As one Democrat said, if the Democrats wait for Biden on Thursday to lead the attacks, they will have wasted the first two nights. Republicans Whit Ayres and Jon McHenry predict that every speaker, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, will attack Romney, "which is probably a mistake."
Biden obviously has another role and it's one reason he was picked to be on the ticket in 2008. He speaks to a constituency that long has been resistant to the president: white working-class voters. Biden speaks their language and will try again to be a validator for Obama with these voters.
The vice president, of course, can be an unguided missile, thought it's doubtful he'll be given the kind of freedom that the Romney campaign gave to Clint Eastwood in Tampa to ad lib his way through his assigned time. Biden can speak extemporaneously and at length about a lot of subjects, but the stakes are high enough - for Obama's reelection and Biden's political standing - that he'll likely see this as a time to choose his sharp words carefully.
5What is Michelle Obama's role at the convention?
The first lady was a big star in Denver four years ago and remains widely admired. Like Ann Romney, she can help remind people of Obama as a husband and father and warm up someone who can seem cool and distant.
"The president's role is to present a high-altitude vision for the country," said Democratic strategist Nathan Daschle. "Michelle Obama, on the other hand, can connect us on an emotional level to the president. Barack Obama is academic and a bit removed. This is a weakness as much as it's a strength. Michelle Obama is much warmer and can provide that level of emotional connection we don't get from the president."
Michelle Obama can help in other ways. With the Obama campaign trying to make the gender gap as big as possible, she can counter appeals to women at the Republican convention by some of the female speakers, though Ann Romney will be off limits.
The first lady can also play a big role in helping to energize the base. She is a keeper of the 2008 flame. Democrats suffer from a potential enthusiasm gap, which is just one of the ways in which 2012 is different from 2008. Whatever Michelle Obama can do to try to get Democrats once again fired up and ready to go will be a measure of the success of her speech.
6What is Obama's message for white working-class voters - or should he not worry about them?
Obama can't afford to ignore or take for granted any voters. "We can't write off any constituency, certainly not one that large," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "We won't win those voters, but there is a difference between losing by 20 points and losing by 40 points. The message is simple: Mitt Romney is a symbol of everything that's wrong with our economy."
Democrats have been losing white working-class voters for years, and they seem particularly resistant to Obama's appeals. He struggled with them in many of the industrial-state primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. He lost them in the general election, and he has been trailing significantly among these voters in polls all spring and summer.
But by winning big majorities of African Americans, Latinos, younger single women and very well-educated voters, Obama can afford to lose the white working-class vote. He just can't get wiped out with that constituency.
To prevent further erosion, the president needs to make his case that, whatever these voters may think of him, Romney would be worse. It's a classic class-warfare message wrapped in the rhetoric of moving forward as the one to rebuild the economy.
By attacking Romney all summer for his record at Bain Capital, the Obama campaign is trying turn the Republican nominee into the guy who fires people. But Obama needs to do more than just try to disqualify Romney. He'll be on the offensive, but will he have a credible message to struggling middle-class voters?
7Will attacks or positive messaging persuade undecided voters to support Obama?
Obama's campaign has been on the attack all summer - in its advertising, its messages of the day, its conference calls and its tweets - in an effort to disqualify Romney as an alternative. Republicans say that's because Obama can't defend his economic record and has nothing of note to be positive about.
Voters say they dislike negative ads but studies show that people process the information in those commercials quickly and often get valuable information from them. Voters dislike the worst of the ads they see, particularly those that are too personal. But contrast ads can do more to move voters than personal attacks or purely positive ads.
Still, undecided independent voters are turned off by the discord in Washington and the negative tone of politics generally. Obama has been effective in drawing contrasts with what Romney has advocated, but can't risk losing his advantage on likability. As one Democrat put it, "His largest asset four years ago was being thought of above politics and truly post-partisan. He needs to recapture some of that notion and leave the hard-hitting stuff to others."
8Who will be jockeying in Charlotte for attention for 2016?
Because this is Obama's last campaign, win or lose, one of the subthemes of the convention in Charlotte will be the speculation about who will lead the party four years from now.
In Tampa, there was considerable focus on the rising generation of Republicans who, if Romney loses, will be competing for their party's nomination in 2016. Republicans will have a large cast of younger leaders from which to choose.
Democrats have a different dynamic. The conversation in Charlotte will start with questions about two members of the administration: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Biden.
Clinton has said she will leave her post at the end of the year and has given no indication that she wants to run for president again. But she'll be under tremendous pressure to do so. Biden has wanted to be president since he first ran in 1988. Until he says he won't run, he, too, could block some younger Democrats.
If neither of them decides to run, then the list could be long: governors, senators, other members of the Cabinet, even Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, if his keynote address lights up the arena the way Obama's did in Boston eight years ago.
"Charlotte will be one-stop shopping for the operatives, activists, donors and other core players that will help some of these potential candidates establish themselves and get traction in the invisible primary that begins on November 7th," Democratic strategist Michael Feldman said.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1054 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 3, 2012 Monday
Met 2 Edition
'Build that' remark echoes 'Build that' remark echoes
BYLINE: Amy Gardner
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2080 words
DATELINE: CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE - After being pummeled for days at the Republican National Convention for his remark that business owners "didn't build that," President Obama heads to the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina this week facing mounting questions about how he will respond to charges that he is hostile to free enterprise.
On Sunday, senior Obama advisers suggested that they will not address the anti-business allegations directly but will instead try to turn the tables on their GOP rivals by accusing them of being dishonest about what Obama meant. David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said in an interview Sunday on ABC News that Republican Mitt Romney's campaign is engaged in a broader pattern of dishonesty and is "built on a tripod of lies." Plouffe cited accusations that Obama has gutted the work requirement for welfare and "raided" Medicare to pay for the nation's new health-care law as other examples of untruths coming from the GOP.
The Obama team thinks that it has effectively dealt with the "build that" attacks and that the issue is overblown - the "drill, baby, drill" of 2012, a rallying cry for the right but ultimately one with limited appeal in the broader electorate.
Nevertheless, there are signs that they see a vulnerability. Obama has not repeated the words that sparked the controversy, and he has toned down the broader argument - that government help is essential to business success - in the six weeks since he ad-libbed the line near the end of a long campaign swing. His speeches have been shorter, with fewer references to wealthy Americans. He is more cautious about portraying the choice that he quite forcefully described that night between Romney's worldview and his own.
Adviser David Axelrod, traveling with the president in Colorado on Sunday, said the public will come away from the convention "with a very clear sense" of Obama's values, including his faith in private enterprise.
"It's striking to me how enamored they are with that theme and how ineffectual it's been," Axelrod said. "You look at the polling and they've spent millions and millions of dollars on it and it may thrill their base. But it hasn't expanded their base because people understand that the view they're imputing to the president isn't his view. I don't feel like we have to respond to their dry holes." Obama campaign advisers say internal polling shows that the GOP attacks have not shifted public opinion.
The "build that" accusations reached a fever pitch last week at the Republican convention.
Obama made the comment in July in Roanoke, saying: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Republicans have typically quoted only the last part - "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" - prompting most independent fact checkers to conclude that the line was taken out of context. That's Obama's argument, too; his advisers cite numerous speeches with similar language about the important role government plays paying for roads and bridges and other infrastructure to help businesses grow and prosper.
Republicans say that, even in context, it's not clear whether Obama is referring to businesses or infrastructure when he states, "you didn't build that." They say the overall speech reinforces a narrative about Obama - that he places too much faith in government - that resonates with voters.
"We need a president who will say to a small businesswoman, 'Congratulations!' " said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), one of several speakers to cite the line in Tampa.
The tactic has certainly resonated with the Republican grass roots. Throughout the GOP convention, and even sporadically at Obama rallies across the country, activists have displayed "I Built That" T-shirts and signs. On Sunday, a huge banner on an airplane hangar greeted the president in Sioux City, Iowa, where the airport code is SUX: "Obama Welcome to SUX. And We Did Build This."
During the original 42-minute speech in Roanoke on July 13, Obama used no teleprompter, instead relying on notes and at times injecting lengthy and impromptu riffs about the role government has played in building this nation. He talked of an elderly veteran who relied on the G.I. Bill to go to college and a single mother who got an education with grants. He criticized Republicans for wanting to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of government programs that benefit the middle class. But in this instance, he lingered on the point.
He blamed the GOP for what he described as undermining the American contract that allows all people to succeed if they're willing to work hard. He talked of "rich people," "millionaires" and "wealthy investors." At times he seemed to lecture his audience about the stark choice he sees in this election, waiting for the crowd to quiet so he could continue.
Obama advisers say the president did not seek to make news that night in Roanoke, and that his message has grown sharper since then because that's what happens over the course of a campaign. They say the speech came at the end of a long day - he did appear tired, and his voice was hoarse - and say if he'd intended to try out a new message, it would have happened at his first stop of the tour.
That evening, Obama spoke nearly twice as long as he has in more recent campaign rallies - a tendency, his advisers said, when he is fatigued. It was a hot, sticky night; more than 20 people in the crowd required medical attention, and at one point, even Obama noticed from the stage, advising supporters to "make sure you're drinking water."
Republicans seem to have noticed that Obama was tired, too. "They're running this guy ragged," GOP strategist Karl Rove said in an interview, adding that the president's "normal filters shut down." The implication was that the GOP will be watching for more such instances for the duration of the campaign.
gardnera@washpost.com
David Nakamura and Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.
CHARLOTTE - After being pummeled for days at the Republican convention for his remark that business owners "didn't build that," President Obama heads to the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina this week facing mounting questions about how he will respond to charges that he is hostile to free enterprise.
On Sunday, senior Obama advisers suggested they will not address the anti-business allegations directly but will instead try to turn the tables on their Republican rivals by accusing them of being dishonest about what Obama meant. David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said in an interview Sunday on ABC News that Republican Mitt Romney's campaign is engaged in a broader pattern of dishonesty and "built on a tripod of lies." Plouffe cited accusations that Obama has gutted the work requirement in welfare reform and "raided" Medicare to pay for the health-care law as other examples of untruths coming from the GOP.
The Obama team thinks that it has effectively dealt with the "build that" attacks and that the issue is overblown - the "drill, baby, drill" of 2012, a rallying cry for the right but ultimately one with limited appeal in the broader electorate.
Nevertheless, there are signs they see a vulnerability. Obama has not repeated the words that sparked the controversy, and he has toned down the broader argument - that government help is essential to business success - in the six weeks since he ad-libbed the line near the end of a long campaign swing. His speeches have been shorter, with fewer references to wealthy Americans. He is more cautious about portraying the choice that he quite forcefully described that night between Romney's worldview and his own.
Adviser David Axelrod, traveling with Obama in Colorado on Sunday, said the public will come away from the convention "with a very clear sense" of Obama's values, including the president's faith in private enterprise.
"It's striking to me how enamored they are with that theme and how ineffectual it's been," Axelrod said. "You look at the polling and they've spent millions and millions of dollars on it and it may thrill their base. But it hasn't expanded their base because people understand that the view they're imputing to the president isn't his view. I don't feel like we have to respond to their dry holes." Obama campaign advisers say internal polling shows that the GOP attacks have not shifted public opinion.
Pressure has been growing for Obama to address the "build that" accusations since they reached a fever pitch last week at the Republican National Convention.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help," Obama said that July night in Roanoke. "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Republicans have typically quoted only the last part - "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" - prompting most independent fact checkers to conclude that the line was taken out of context. That's Obama's argument, too; his advisers cite numerous speeches with similar language about the important role government plays paying for roads and bridges and other infrastructure to help businesses grow and prosper.
Republicans say that, even in context, it's not clear whether Obama is referring to businesses or infrastructure when he states, "you didn't build that." They say the overall speech reinforces a narrative about Obama - that he places too much faith in government - that resonates with voters.
"We need a president who will say to a small businesswoman, 'Congratulations!' " said Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), one of several speakers to cite the line in Tampa.
The tactic has certainly resonated with the Republican grass roots; throughout the GOP convention, and even sporadically at Obama rallies across the country, activists have displayed "I Built That" T-shirts and signs. On Sunday, a huge banner on an airplane hangar greeted the president in Sioux City, Iowa, where the airport code is SUX: "Obama Welcome to SUX. And We Did Build This."
During the original 42-minute speech in Roanoke on July 13, Obama used no teleprompter, instead relying on notes and at times injecting lengthy and impromptu riffs about the role government has played in building this nation. He talked of an elderly veteran who relied on the G.I. Bill to go to college and a single mom who got an education with grants. He criticized Republicans for wanting to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of government programs that benefit the middle class. But in this instance, he lingered on the point.
He blamed the GOP for what he described as undermining the American contract that allows all people to succeed if they're willing to work hard. He talked of "rich people," "millionaires" and "wealthy investors." At times he seemed to lecture his audience about the stark choice he sees in this election, waiting for the crowd to quiet so he could continue.
Obama advisers say the president did not seek to make news that night in Roanoke, and that his message has grown sharper since then because that's what happens over the course of a campaign. They say the speech came at the end of a long day - he did appear tired, and his voice was hoarse - and say if he'd intended to try out a new message, it would have happened at his first stop of the tour.
That evening, Obama spoke nearly twice as long as he has in more recent campaign rallies - a tendency, his advisers said, when he is fatigued. It was a hot, sticky night; more than 20 people in the crowd required medical attention, and at one point, even Obama noticed from the stage, advising supporters to "make sure you're drinking water."
Republicans seem to have noticed that Obama was tired, too. "They're running this guy ragged," GOP strategist Karl Rove said in an interview, adding that the president's "normal filters shut down." The implication was that the GOP will be watching for more such instances for the duration of the campaign.
gardnera@washpost.com
David Nakamura and Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1055 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 3, 2012 Monday
Regional Edition
Sifting through both sides' Medi-scare tactics
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 2165 words
"Senator McCain would pay for part of his [health-care] plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare, $882 billion worth. . . . It ain't right."
- Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, as seen in a Mitt Romney campaign ad
We returned from vacation to find lots of questions from readers about Medicare. The campaigns have been engaged in a tit-for-tat war of words that, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, appears to have _blankresulted in a draw so far. We will not delve into the details of those ads except to note with amusement a new Romney ad that _blankaccurately quotes Obama from four years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/post-poll-medicare.jpghttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/26/mitt-romney/romney-ad-says-obama-attacked-mccain-medicare-08/Perhaps one reason why the Medicare fight has resulted in a draw is because both parties have played rhetorical games with the old-age health program.
Democrats in 1996 effectively attacked Republicans for proposing "cuts" in Medicare, but then after the election cut a deal with Republicans allowing some of those same reductions. In 2008, Obama claimed John McCain, if he became president, would make "drastic cuts in Medicare" to fund his health program. Then Republicans turned the tables in 2010, attacking spending reductions implemented by Democrats to help fund the new health-care law.
Who wouldn't be confused? Both sides profess to be concerned about the financial health of the program but then bash each other with scary rhetoric in the very next election.Here are some answers to key questions that have arisen in recent weeks.
Did President Obamacut $700 billion from Medicare?
The current Medicare system, in place since the mid-1960s, is essentially a government-run health-care program, with hospital and doctors' fees paid by the government, though beneficiaries also pay premiums for some services as well as deductibles and co-insurance.
During the primaries, Republicans _blankused to claim that Obama cut Medicare by $500 billion. So how did it balloon to a $700 billion figure? There is a simple explanation. The Congressional Budget Office last month _blankissued a new estimate based on a different - and later - 10-year time frame (2013 to 2022). Of course, Republicans decided to pick the biggest number possible.
But, as we have repeatedly explained, Medicare spending is not being reduced. It still goes up year after year.
The $700 billion figure (technically, $716 billion) comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. Moreover, the savings mostly are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
The proposed reduction in spending actually strengthens the long-term health of the Medicare program, according to Medicare trustees reports. And spending on Medicare over that 10-year period would still be $7.8 trillion.
In fact, House Republicans adopted many of these same cuts in their own budget. Both parties agree that controls are needed on Medicare spending - that is the only way that the Medicare trust funds last longer - but they disagree over the best path forward. We have generally given Republicans two Pinocchios for such claims.
Did Obama use Medicare savings to fund 'Obamacare'?
All government money is fungible, but depending on how this claim is phrased, one could certainly make this rhetorical point. In the health-care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. _blankAs we have previously examined, this sort of "double-counting" accounting has been used by both parties for decades.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sebelius-and-double-counting-of-medicare-savings/2011/03/11/ABeOaUR_blog.htmlThe Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
Under the concept of the unified budget, money that is collected by the federal government for whatever purpose (such as Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes) is spent on whatever bills are coming due at that time. Social Security and Medicare will get a credit for taxes collected that are not immediately spent on Social Security, but those taxes are quickly devoted to other federal spending.
In sum, the health-care bill actually puts Medicare on a more solid financial footing. Also, the health-care law improved some benefits for seniors, such as making preventive care free and closing a gap in prescription drug coverage known as the "doughnut hole" - improvements that Republicans would repeal.
Is Medicare going 'bankrupt'?
Nope. This is an old song played by both parties. There are different parts of Medicare,_blank much of which is paid from general revenue and premiums. Part A, which pays hospitals, has a "trust fund," made up of special-issue Treasury bonds, that always seems to be _blankon the edge of running dry. But even so, the payroll tax could pay most estimated expenditures for decades. And does anyone doubt Congress would not step in and fill any gaps?
http://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/decide-how-to-get-medicare/whats-medicare/what-is-medicare.htmlhttp://www.aging.senate.gov/crs/medicare14.pdf
Will Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare force seniors to pay $6,400 more than they do today?
This is a Democratic attack line, based on old data concerning an earlier version of Ryan's plan. (Sometimes Obama refers to the "original" plan in his remarks.) In July, _blankwe gave Obama two Pinocchios for making a similar claim. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-medicare-plan-obamas-use-of-out-of-date-data/2012/07/23/gJQAZ2yE5W_blog.html
Readers should always be wary of dire predictions far in the future. The $6,400 figure refers to analysis of _blanka CBO estimate of a different and less generous version of Ryan's plan in the year 2022; the CBO made no such estimates of the new version, _blanksaying it did "not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects for the specified path of Medicare spending" but that "beneficiaries might face higher costs."
The new Ryan plan, moreover, retains the option of traditional Medicare, while the old version did not.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read more Fact Checker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker.
"Senator McCain would pay for part of his [health-care] plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare, $882 billion worth. . . . It ain't right."
- Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, as seen in a Mitt Romney campaign ad
We returned from vacation to find lots of questions from readers about Medicare. The campaigns have been engaged in a tit-for-tat war of words that, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, appears to have _blankresulted in a draw so far. We will not delve into the details of those ads except to note with amusement a new Romney ad that _blankaccurately quotes Obama from four years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/post-poll-medicare.jpghttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/26/mitt-romney/romney-ad-says-obama-attacked-mccain-medicare-08/Perhaps one reason why the Medicare fight has resulted in a draw is because both parties have played rhetorical games with the old-age health program.
Democrats in 1996 effectively attacked Republicans for proposing "cuts" in Medicare, but then after the election cut a deal with Republicans allowing some of those same reductions. In 2008, Obama claimed John McCain, if he became president, would make "drastic cuts in Medicare" to fund his health program. Then Republicans turned the tables in 2010, attacking spending reductions implemented by Democrats to help fund the new health-care law.
Who wouldn't be confused? Both sides profess to be concerned about the financial health of the program but then bash each other with scary rhetoric in the very next election.Here are some answers to key questions that have arisen in recent weeks.
Did President Obamacut $700 billion from Medicare?
The current Medicare system, in place since the mid-1960s, is essentially a government-run health-care program, with hospital and doctors' fees paid by the government, though beneficiaries also pay premiums for some services as well as deductibles and co-insurance.
During the primaries, Republicans _blankused to claim that Obama cut Medicare by $500 billion. So how did it balloon to a $700 billion figure? There is a simple explanation. The Congressional Budget Office last month _blankissued a new estimate based on a different - and later - 10-year time frame (2013 to 2022). Of course, Republicans decided to pick the biggest number possible.
But, as we have repeatedly explained, Medicare spending is not being reduced. It still goes up year after year.
The $700 billion figure (technically, $716 billion) comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. Moreover, the savings mostly are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
The proposed reduction in spending actually strengthens the long-term health of the Medicare program, according to Medicare trustees reports. And spending on Medicare over that 10-year period would still be $7.8 trillion.
In fact, House Republicans adopted many of these same cuts in their own budget. Both parties agree that controls are needed on Medicare spending - that is the only way that the Medicare trust funds last longer - but they disagree over the best path forward. We have generally given Republicans two Pinocchios for such claims.
Did Obama use Medicare savings to fund 'Obamacare'?
All government money is fungible, but depending on how this claim is phrased, one could certainly make this rhetorical point. In the health-care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. _blankAs we have previously examined, this sort of "double-counting" accounting has been used by both parties for decades.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sebelius-and-double-counting-of-medicare-savings/2011/03/11/ABeOaUR_blog.htmlThe Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
Under the concept of the unified budget, money that is collected by the federal government for whatever purpose (such as Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes) is spent on whatever bills are coming due at that time. Social Security and Medicare will get a credit for taxes collected that are not immediately spent on Social Security, but those taxes are quickly devoted to other federal spending.
In sum, the health-care bill actually puts Medicare on a more solid financial footing. Also, the health-care law improved some benefits for seniors, such as making preventive care free and closing a gap in prescription drug coverage known as the "doughnut hole" - improvements that Republicans would repeal.
Is Medicare going 'bankrupt'?
Nope. This is an old song played by both parties. There are different parts of Medicare,_blank much of which is paid from general revenue and premiums. Part A, which pays hospitals, has a "trust fund," made up of special-issue Treasury bonds, that always seems to be _blankon the edge of running dry. But even so, the payroll tax could pay most estimated expenditures for decades. And does anyone doubt Congress would not step in and fill any gaps?
http://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/decide-how-to-get-medicare/whats-medicare/what-is-medicare.htmlhttp://www.aging.senate.gov/crs/medicare14.pdf
Will Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare force seniors to pay $6,400 more than they do today?
This is a Democratic attack line, based on old data concerning an earlier version of Ryan's plan. (Sometimes Obama refers to the "original" plan in his remarks.) In July, _blankwe gave Obama two Pinocchios for making a similar claim. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-medicare-plan-obamas-use-of-out-of-date-data/2012/07/23/gJQAZ2yE5W_blog.html
Readers should always be wary of dire predictions far in the future. The $6,400 figure refers to analysis of _blanka CBO estimate of a different and less generous version of Ryan's plan in the year 2022; the CBO made no such estimates of the new version, _blanksaying it did "not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects for the specified path of Medicare spending" but that "beneficiaries might face higher costs."
The new Ryan plan, moreover, retains the option of traditional Medicare, while the old version did not.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read more Fact Checker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1056 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Why Campaign Reporters Are Behind the Curve
BYLINE: By SASHA ISSENBERG.
A columnist for Slate and the author of the forthcoming book ''The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.''
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Sunday Review Desk; OPINION; Pg. 6
LENGTH: 2163 words
IT becomes popular around this time of year to lament the fact that media coverage treats the presidential campaign as little more than a ''horse race.'' Journalists, this line of argument goes, choose to fixate on which candidate is a superior campaigner or savvier strategist, not on who has sounder ideas or is better prepared to govern. From time to time, the journalists themselves concede that to maintain daily or hourly tension in the contests they promote, they have little choice but to elevate minor poll shifts into major developments.
But the reality about horse-race journalism is far more embarrassing to the press and ought to be just as disappointing to the readers who consume our reporting. The truth is that we aren't even that good at covering the horse race. If the 2012 campaign has been any indication, journalists remain unable to keep up with the machinations of modern campaigns, and things are likely only to get worse.
''My view is that there's nothing that's secret in campaigns anymore -- but that doesn't mean everything is understandable in a campaign,'' says Terry Nelson, who served as John McCain's campaign manager in 2008. ''The ability of campaigns to run circles around journalists in some places is strong, and it's not healthy.''
I covered the 2008 election for The Boston Globe, filing articles that I hoped would rise above the superficial and ephemeral poll-driven reporting that I had been trained to disdain. But after spending the last two years reporting on the scientific revolution that is quietly reshaping politics, I realized how much of the story my colleagues and I had missed.
Over the last decade, almost entirely out of view, campaigns have modernized their techniques in such a way that nearly every member of the political press now lacks the specialized expertise to interpret what's going on. Campaign professionals have developed a new conceptual framework for understanding what moves votes. It's as if restaurant critics remained oblivious to a generation's worth of new chefs' tools and techniques and persisted in describing every dish that came out of the kitchen as either ''grilled'' or ''broiled.''
''When I went to work for my first campaign, in 1994, I was actually surprised at how journalists tended to think one step ahead where campaigns are four steps ahead,'' says Joel Benenson, a former newspaper reporter who now serves as President Obama's chief pollster. ''Think of it as a level-five player in chess and a level-eight player in chess. You had people covering campaigns who are at the mercy of the grandmasters of politics.''
The gap between journalists' desire to cover the political game and our ability to do so has only widened since Mr. Benenson changed careers. Campaigns have borrowed techniques from the social sciences, including behavioral psychology and statistical modeling. They have access to private collections of data and from their analysis of it have been able to reach empirical, if tentative, conclusions about what works and what doesn't.
But we have done little to update our thinking. Until about 2000, we were able to keep pace with major innovations in the political world. When new tools were developed for measuring public opinion -- whether it was tracking polls, focus groups or the so-called dial sessions that measured a voter's instantaneous response to a video -- news organizations could replicate them. When taking stock of a race's dynamics, journalists reviewed many of the same types of research that sat on a campaign manager's desk.
In the years that followed, campaign analysts began to pull in reams of new data on individual voters. Politicians have always looked for ways to communicate differently with niche audiences on issues of narrow concern, but they had been stuck approaching them in terms of geographic zones or familiar demographic subgroups. Now campaigns had access to all sorts of new demographic and lifestyle markers, like lists of people who purchased religious material or had gun licenses or had recently taken a cruise.
Breathless, and often fact-free, stories about ''data mining'' and ''microtargeting'' soon became plentiful. But few journalists had access to any of the campaigns' data, or even much understanding of the statistical techniques they used. We found ourselves at the mercy of self-promoting consultants who described how they were changing politics by ignoring stodgy old demographics and instead pinpointing voters according to their lifestyles. We played along, guilelessly imputing new mythic powers to microtargeting. In many retellings, data analysis became the reason George W. Bush was re-elected.
Microtargeting was at once less directly influential, and more fundamentally disruptive, than these analyses suggested. The most colorful commercial variables that appeared prominently in journalistic accounts of microtargeting -- whether someone drank gin or drove a Subaru -- were never of much value on their own. It was the combination of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of data points that offered value: algorithms could weigh previously imperceptible relationships among variables to predict political attitudes and behavior.
Now, instead of defining voters by a handful of self-evident attributes like rural Hispanic Democratic men or non-college-educated white seniors, campaigns could group individual citizens according to segments or scores that reflected gradations of predicted habits -- of how likely they were to turn out to vote or to support a specific candidate. They could be aggregated into what campaigns call a universe -- targets for the same persuasive media or get-out-the-vote drive -- not by visible demographic commonalities but because they were projected to behave in similar ways.
Five days after Mitt Romney selected Paul D. Ryan as his running mate, Mr. Obama's campaign released a public memo by Mr. Benenson with the title ''Romney's Choice of Ryan Falls Flat.'' In it, Mr. Benenson reviewed survey data from pollsters like Gallup and Rasmussen to argue that Mr. Romney had not realized the same post-running-mate bounce as previous nominees had. The media duly covered the memo as news, under headlines like ''Obama Pollster Says (With Data) Ryan Pick a Dud.''
In his Aug. 16 memo, Mr. Benenson wrote that ''Ryan has had virtually no impact on Romney's position.'' That may have been a fair conclusion to draw from the public horse-race polls available then. But the publicly available data Mr. Benenson cited relied on an entirely different sampling methodology than the ones based on microtargeting scores that Mr. Obama's polling operation actually uses to guide campaign strategy. Because their proprietary data was more varied and nuanced than Gallup's, Mr. Obama's advisers also knew then that it was too soon to assess Mr. Ryan's impact. His selection could still cause dramatic changes to the contours of the contest without an obvious disruption to Mr. Romney's standing in the horse race.
Indeed, the telling numbers wouldn't be polls but the individual probability scores that Mr. Obama's targeters developed (and update weekly) to predict how likely each voter in the country is to support him. As the scores adjusted to reflect post-selection opinion, there was the prospect that they could show a tranche of Romney backers (likely older whites) incrementally weakening in their support for the Republican ticket. Obama tacticians would relish the news: it would signal the emergence of a new persuasion universe where the president could play offense and force Mr. Romney to defend against defections.
Contrary to what Mr. Benenson's public memo suggested, the Obama campaign wasn't merely concerned with those who had already moved because of the Ryan pick. Chicago was already one step ahead, tracking those who may have just become susceptible to future movement. Once the campaign had identified those voters, it could start communicating with them, either through individually targeted contact like mail, phone calls and Web ads or niche media, which often elude the attention of the national political press.
''All journalists have one channel and all campaigns have one hundred, between Internet, TV, e-mail,'' says Samuel Popkin, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, who has been a strategist for four Democratic presidential candidates. ''They're out there thinking, 'What should we put in the goldbug newsletter or the Hadassah weekly?' and the reporters are all thinking about what you're putting in their paper.''
JOURNALISTS tend to mistake the part of the campaign that is exposed to their view -- the candidate's travel and speeches, television ads, public pronouncements of spokesmen and surrogates -- for the entirety of the enterprise. They treat elections almost exclusively as an epic strategic battle to win hearts and minds whose primary tools are image-making and storytelling.
But particularly in a polarized race like this one, where fewer than one-tenth of voters are moving between candidates, the most advanced thinking inside a campaign is just as likely to focus on fine-tuning statistical models to refine vote counts and improve techniques for efficiently identifying and mobilizing existing supporters.
''There's a lot that goes on in a campaign that reporters never really get at,'' says Mr. Benenson. ''There are a lot more things at play.''
Failing to appreciate those nitty-gritty tactics can mean missing the bigger strategic story altogether. The most examined inside-baseball campaign topic of 2011 concerned whether Mr. Romney would cede the Iowa caucuses to his rivals. If he threw himself into Iowa and lost, the thinking went, he would reveal weaknesses in a front-runner's candidacy, like limitations that his faith or record placed on his reach among conservatives.
For nearly the entire year, all signs pointed to the notion that Mr. Romney was holding back for fear of experiencing a repeat of his embarrassing loss four years earlier. The candidate rarely visited the state, lacked a Des Moines headquarters, skipped the Ames straw poll and did not air a single advertisement.
Within Mr. Romney's campaign, however, his options were never seen as the binary choice presented by the ''Will Mitt make a play for Iowa?'' media parlor game. While journalists waited for physical manifestations of a Romney ''ground game'' to materialize, Mr. Romney deployed statistical models to track Iowa supporters and current vote counts for his rivals. It amounted to a largely invisible 21st-century upgrade to the traditional infrastructure of offices, phone banks and staff that most journalists visualized when they tossed around the term ''organization.'' Only six weeks before the caucus did Mr. Romney unveil the trappings of a traditional caucus campaign.
On election night, when Mr. Romney was declared the caucus winner, the press treated it as validation of his ability to compete on turf dominated by party activists. But Mr. Romney had not significantly expanded his support in four years. While maintaining a fiction to guard him in case of an Iowa loss, his aides had been diligently counting votes until they had the confidence to know that external dynamics had transformed a losing coalition in 2008 into a winning one. (Mr. Romney's victory was actually later reversed into a 34-vote loss to Rick Santorum.)
Mr. Romney had exploited the inefficiency at the core of contemporary campaign coverage: the press's fascination with strategic calculations and gamesmanship well exceeds its ability to decode the tactics underneath. We may be covering the horse race with more bytes and airtime than ever before, but we're looking at the wrong part of the track and don't know how many legs are on a thoroughbred.
This failure to properly cover the contest should disappoint more than those who want to follow the presidential race as fans, relishing it as competition. The campaign horse race may be our great quadrennial national sport, but how candidates win matters. The coalitions they build, their reliance on party structures and activist networks, the places they choose to spend money and how they allocate their time and other resources all help illuminate the decisions that they will make after taking office. To understand how they will govern, we need to understand how they run.
The smartest people I talk to in political campaigns -- the ones who spend the most time in the company of advanced data and sophisticated experimentation -- are also the quickest to concede how little we ultimately know about what it takes to win. For them, empiricism breeds uncertainty. Only by knowing what is measurable can we appreciate how much isn't, and be honest with readers about the fact that everything else may have to remain a mystery.
PHOTO: Photographers covering John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign in Illinois in 1960. (PHOTOGRAPH BY PAUL SCHUTZER/TIME & LIFE PICTURES -- GETTY IMAGES) (SR7)
URL:
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1057 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Feel the Loathing on the Campaign Trail
BYLINE: By MARK LEIBOVICH
SECTION: Section MM; Column 0; Magazine Desk; Pg. 30
LENGTH: 4697 words
Sometime early last May, I began to have this goofy notion, which turned into a daydream and eventually became a recurring fantasy. It went like this: One morning, I would wake up to the news that the previous evening, with no advance warning to the media, Mitt and Ann Romney stopped by the White House at the invitation of Barack and Michelle Obama. No one was certain what happened while they were there or what they talked about or how it came together, though eventually some details would trickle out. The couples told funny stories from the campaign trail and shared pictures of their families. Mitt drank lemonade, and Michelle led a moonlit tour of her garden. Everyone ate hot dogs loaded with toppings, which inspired a cable christening of the ''Sauerkraut Summit.''
I knew this would never happen. It was dumb, naïve, unsophisticated and frankly out of character for me, someone with little patience for the Kabuki pleasantries of politics. It wasn't immediately clear what drove the fantasy -- a desire for less free-floating hostility in the campaign, I suppose, but that seemed too easy. Whatever the case, I was yearning for something that felt big, or at least different, even if it was just a social visit. Something that messed with what the political know-it-alls refer to as the Narrative. This spring, for the first time since I started writing about politics a decade ago, I found myself completely depressed by a campaign. ''How am I ever going to get through it?'' is not the question you want to be asking yourself as you enter what are supposed to be the pinnacle few months of your profession.
But that's what I was doing to an alarming degree. Maybe it had to do with how bad off the country felt and how outmatched our politicians were by the severity of our problems and how obvious it was that the proverbial ''tone'' of Washington wouldn't change no matter who won. Or maybe it was because my daughters were getting older and starting to tune in more. When I drop them off at school, I sometimes watch them stare wondrously at the vice president's motorcade as it sirens past en route to the White House. It is a moment of fascination and reverence and one of the cool things about raising a family in what is otherwise the most disappointing city in America. I had also just been through a rough winter in which my 11-year-old suffered a head injury that brought some terrifying and unexplained side effects that incapacitated her for months. There's something about wondering whether your kid will ever be able to go back to school and live a normal life that makes a steady ingestion of super-PAC poison, talking-point Novocain and fund-raising spam a little harder to take.
I couldn't shake the idea of this Obama-Romney evening at the White House. I found myself talking about it to people I have actual professional or quasi-professional relationships with. The first was Alex Castellanos, the Republican media strategist and CNN contributor, whom I ran into at a wedding over Memorial Day weekend (yes, the kind of incestuous small-town encounter that also goes with living here). He said he liked it, and then he went immediately into analyst mode, saying it would be ''helpful'' to whoever made the invitation and was thus ''seen as magnanimous.'' A week or so later I mentioned the idea to a top Obama aide, who called it ''interesting'' and then listed all the reasons Obama does not like to mix personal time with work (see: golf invitation made to John Boehner after a full two and a half years in the White House). I started bringing it up casually to people I met at campaign events. They seemed more enthused. ''It would be a sign that something nice is possible,'' said Bob Grandison, a retired technician for Ohio Edison whom I met at an Obama rally in Akron.
This isn't all a setup for one of those gauzy laments about how ''our politics have never been meaner'' or how ''we've lost our civility as a society'' and it would all be so much better if our leaders could just emulate the oft-invoked after-hours salons of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill (a tradition way overstated). Nor am I a member of the ''deeply saddened and troubled'' club, like John McCain (or whoever tweets for him), who recently called this campaign the ''worst I've ever seen.'' This from someone who in 2000 had to field the race-baiting accusation that he fathered his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, out of wedlock, with a black woman.
I am as cynical as any political reporter. And perhaps my recent craving for uplift was a sublimation of my own anger at being a small cog in a giant inanity machine. But I write and read and talk about politics because beneath that cynicism I understand that the stakes are high. On top of which, oddly, the job also keeps me patriotic, a byproduct of seeing -- as I did at a Romney event in Ohio in July -- things like a Korean War veteran in a wheelchair removing his insignia cap and struggling to his feet to salute the flag during the national anthem. (Immediately after which, I looked down at my BlackBerry to learn that the Democratic National Committee had just released a new ad ridiculing Ann Romney's dressage horse.)
But what's been completely missing this year has been, for lack of a better word, joy. Yes, it's always kind of fun to follow Joe Biden around and wait to hear what will come out of his mouth next, and who knows what Paul Ryan has hidden under his oversize jacket. But the principals don't seem to be experiencing much joy as they go through their market-tested paces. A kind of faux-ness permeates everything this year in a way that it hasn't been quite so consuming in the past. The effect has been anesthetizing and made it difficult to take any of the day's supposed gaffes, game-changers and false umbrages seriously. The campaigns appeared locked in a paradigm of terrified superpowers' spending blindly on redundant warfare. How many times do they have to blow up Vladivostok?
Where were the surprises, the pleasures of discovery and the true emotion of the newly vitalized? The volunteers who decided to get involved because so-and-so inspired them, not because the other guy (the socialist or the plutocrat) scared them? They seemed in such short supply. This might or might not be the most important election of our lifetime -- as we are told it is every four years -- but it really did feel like the most joyless.
I wanted to find a moment in the muck that proved me wrong. So in mid-July I started circulating through campaign rallies and headquarters on a mission to find something that might make me feel, if not joyful, at least more at peace with the joylessness.
My first stop was a Romney town-hall gathering at a community center in Bowling Green, Ohio. An orderly, almost entirely white procession filed through metal detectors to Bob Seger's ''Ramblin' Gamblin' Man,'' which of course immediately brings Mitt Romney to mind. The traveling media, which often refer to Romney among themselves as Mittens, was at the back of the room, ignored by the rest of the crowd, with the one sensational exception of Carl Cameron, the oval-headed reporter for Fox News. As is customary for any recognizable Fox personality at a Republican event, Cameron was a popular fuss-object -- waved to and asked for photos and autographs, requests which he obliged with the flair of a seasoned senator. ''Thank God for Fox News,'' one man yelled.
Romney is better on the stump now than he was five or six months ago, and surprisingly better in person than he is on TV -- more human-seeming, somehow, when seen head to toe. On screen, his hurried asides (''I'm running for office, for Pete's sake'') and staccato laugh seem weirder and more pronounced. In person, there's a slightly awkward charm about him. But he still emits a kind of pretraumatic gaffe anxiety at all times. This is understandable, given today's hair-trigger media, but you sense that it runs deeper. His father and idol, the former governor of Michigan George Romney, saw his presidential hopes blown apart after he claimed to have been ''brainwashed'' into supporting the Vietnam War (inspiring a classic insult by Senator Eugene McCarthy, who said that with Romney ''a light rinse would have been sufficient''). The episode supposedly had a searing effect on Mitt, and people who know him say it sank a hypervigilance in him that has shaped his public demeanor for decades.
As Romney took questions, a self-described ''angry mom'' went on a rant about how her son's apparel business has suffered under Obama -- ''that monster,'' as she called the president. Some in the crowd laughed, and Romney closed his eyes and ducked his head, assuming a look of either pained meditation or quiet panic. I imagined the data-processing spasm in his brain as he weighed whether to disavow the remark immediately or risk seeming to have endorsed it. Romney clasped his hands at his waist and, after a few seconds, chose action. ''That's not a term I would use,'' he said, and then, ''but, but, but, uh, uh,'' before Kathye Zaper of suburban Toledo told her party's presidential nominee that, because of her status as a mother who was angry, she could call the president a monster if she wanted to.
In his speech, Romney asked everyone in the room who had started their own businesses to please stand. A few dozen people did, some holding signs that said things like ''I opened my own business'' and ''I created a business. Not the government.'' ''These are fun; these are fun signs!'' Romney gushed. ''For those who made those signs, thank you for reminding us who it is in America that creates jobs.''
After the event, I met one of these business owners, Wayne Michaelis, standing outside the auditorium. I knew he had opened a business, because his sign said so. He is a retired orthodontist. ''I build smiles,'' he said proudly. But he did not build his own ''I opened my own business'' sign. That was handed to him, as were many others, by the campaign.
Michaelis admitted this to a reporter traveling with Romney and word spread fast within the press corps -- a morsel of gotcha chum bobbing in the water. Other reporters approached Michaelis, seeking verification. ''This is all the media is going to focus on for this event,'' Dick Motten, a financial planner who was standing next to Michaelis, said. He watched with some disgust as the reporters surrounded his friend. ''You can see what's happening here,'' Motten said. ''They don't care what Wayne has to say. They just want to know that he didn't make his own sign. And then they'll make a big deal of it.'' About that, he was right. The homemade-sign revelation was online within hours.
The political media are engaged in their own silly arms race. The treadmill existence of having to file articles around the clock, tweet nonevents as they happen and listen to the same canned speeches and campaign conference calls day after day, waiting for something, anything, to bust up the script so that you can pretend there's news here; this can be the definition of joylessness. Politics operates in ''cycles'' -- news cycles, election cycles -- one of those words that has come into fashion in recent years. There's even a political show on MSNBC called ''The Cycle'' (which, as The Washington Post's Karen Tumulty pointed out in a tweet, was obviously not named by a woman).
President Obama talks a lot now about how his hair is going gray. It's a useful tool of self-deprecation (the ''my big ears'' of 2012) and a functional symbol of what his team calls the ''grind it out'' election, as opposed to the Hope and Change of 2008. In early August, I went to see him speak at a midday rally in the center of Mansfield, in north-central Ohio, in front of the faded brick exterior of an out-of-business department store. Obama does his best to stir the old magic -- droppin' his g's and talkin' straight about how his opponents think we ''should be goin' back to what we were doin' that got us into this mess in the first place.'' But his appearances can give off the slightly musty air of Van Halen in the Sammy Hagar years.
After he spoke, the president quickly worked the crowd near the front of the stage. He does a decent meet-and-greet but clearly lacks Bill Clinton's or Biden's draw-energy-from-the-adoring-throng gene. As with Romney, you can picture him grabbing for the Purell as soon as he escapes the rope line. His retail-politicking chores completed, Obama disappeared behind a thick black curtain next to an empty storefront, into something called the ''Good News Center'' -- a place I was not allowed to go.
I originally planned to see Obama at two events in Florida the previous week, but made it only as far as Atlanta, where I missed a connection and stayed in a Motel 6 and woke early the next morning to the ghastly news of the Colorado movie-theater massacre. The campaigns pressed pause. Sitting in the dark motel room, I got a sentimental yearning again -- for something that might break with the predictable regiment that followed a Sobering National Tragedy. I knew there would be statements from the candidates and talk of national unity during this difficult time, and then some member of Congress would say something inflammatory (cue Louie Gohmert, the Texas Republican, who blamed the massacre on a lack of prayer) and then some reporter would wrongly say the shootings were politically motivated (cue ABC's Brian Ross, who initially suggested that the suspect was linked to the Tea Party); a cluster of Democrats would call for tougher arms restrictions, and the president would barely touch the issue, because to do otherwise would be to bang his head against political concrete. I craved something more this time, some real joint action, the two candidates meeting in Aurora as a show of unity that went beyond pro forma expressions of condolence and a brief ceasing of hostilities. Maybe they could issue a statement saying that while the shooting was not politically motivated, there is a lot of anger out there and they wanted to address it together. As the hiatus proceeded -- a ''highly choreographed détente,'' as Zeke Miller from Buzzfeed called it -- the campaigns were quick to advertise all the campaigning they were not doing. ''We have asked affiliates to pull down our contrast advertising for the time being,'' Jen Psaki, an Obama spokeswoman, said.
By Monday, three days later, they were back to pulling down each other's Garanimals. David Axelrod ended the cease-fire with a pair of early-morning tweets about Romney's being ''secretive'' regarding his tax returns and business career and etc.
''I guess it's back on,'' Romney's communications director, Gail Gitcho, said when told of the truce-busting tweet.
I was sitting in a bar later that day in Boston's North End with Gitcho and Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's longtime press secretary. ''Over the weekend, we were constantly assessing when we could return to campaign activities,'' said Fehrnstrom, a former Boston Herald reporter with chubby cheeks and a jittery bearing. He goes to bed every night at 11:30, wakes at 3, checks his BlackBerry and then tries to get another hour or so of ''not exactly quality REM sleep'' before starting the day. He and Gitcho described how restless they felt during the Aurora armistice, and like a couple sharing the same pheromonic response to the news cycle, they both began quivering their knees under the table at precisely the same time.
Romney's campaign staff is known in political shorthand as ''Boston,'' and Obama's is ''Chicago'' -- like the Russians used to be ''Moscow'' and the Americans were ''Washington.'' Owing to valid security concerns, Romney's North End headquarters feel like a fortress, with no external signifiers that a presidential campaign is being run there. (Obama's headquarters in Chicago are like this, too.) Receptionists in the lobby greet visitors from behind thick glass similar to what you'd find at a gas station in a rough neighborhood. Inside, big framed pictures of Ronald Reagan and George Romney dominate walls, along with prominent renderings of Mitt and Ann. A lone photo of George W. Bush hangs crooked next to a darkened office in a far corner. (The former president and Laura Bush would stop by the headquarters on a visit to Boston the day after I was there, and I imagined young campaign workers scrambling to put up more Bush pictures.)
Gitcho is a forcible presence who wakes most mornings before 5 for ''boot camp'' training at a North End gym. She referred to the Obama staff as ''the defending champs'' three times in a half hour and kept pointing out that as of that day, the Obama re-election campaign had 778 people on its payroll to Romney's 272 (though the Romney staff grew considerably when Paul Ryan joined the ticket). Stuart Stevens, Romney's chief strategist, said the media's trivial focus on things like Romney's gaffes and his tax returns wouldn't amount to anything next to the ravages of the Obama economy. He wanted me to understand that none of the news-cycle fodder amounted to anything. ''If Steinbeck was alive today,'' Stevens said, ''you think he would be writing about tweets?''
Officials in each camp like to praise one another in the classically backhanded language of politics. ''Obama is a good salesman trying to push a defective product,'' Fehrnstrom said, to which Gitcho replied, ''Oh, that's a good one.'' Fehrnstrom looked pleased. ''You see where I mixed in something nice with something bad?''
Fehrnstrom accuses Axelrod of having ''an entire staff of people who tweet for him'' (not true), and he makes sneering references to the foosball table at Obama HQ (it's a Ping-Pong table). The intention is of course to contrast the lean, no-nonsense approach of Boston with the indulged, big-government-like behemoth of Chicago. Fehrnstrom was on a roll, seeming eager to dispense a little wisdom about how the political magic happens. ''I used to work for an ad agency,'' he said, ''and I always thought the best place to be was on the creative side, because they could get away with anything.'' He added, smirking: ''It's all part of the creative process, I guess. If someone happened to be taking a nap under their desk in the afternoon, you weren't supposed to disturb them, because it's all part of the process.''
As it did four years ago, Team Obama often pats itself on the back for basing its campaign in Chicago, far away from the silliness of Washington. The implication is that they are situated among real Americans with real concerns -- in the heartland of Michigan Avenue. (Whereas ''Chicago'' is used as an epithet by the Romney folks, who like to refer disdainfully to Obama's ''Chicago-style politics.'') For the Obama staff members, ''Chicago'' has an almost talismanic connection to the full-swagger days of 2008, time that political followers, especially those with press credentials, have spent a good part of this campaign longing for. The Ghost of the Last Campaign looms heavy over this one like a dearly departed sibling. One of the more anticipated cultural events of the Washington winter was the premiere of ''Game Change,'' the HBO adaptation of the best seller about the 2008 ''campaign of a lifetime,'' by the journo-pundits Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. The red-carpet opening featured the executive producer, Tom Hanks; the star, Julianne Moore (who played Sarah Palin); Brangelina (i.e., Halperin and Heilemann); Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski; and swarms of White House officials, Congress members, lobbyists and journalists parading into the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue, where they grazed a buffet of salmon and marinated hanger steak with Maui onions. ''You don't get to go back in time,'' said McCain's chief strategist, Steve Schmidt (played by Woody Harrelson), in the film. ''You don't get to have do-overs in life.'' No do-overs, indeed, but you can help shape events retroactively: Schmidt, who presided over the dysfunctional McCain campaign and is credited/blamed with encouraging the candidate to pick Palin, has emerged fine from the fiasco in the proud political tradition of failing upward. He scored a pundit gig on MSNBC and a TV studio outfitted in his home on Lake Tahoe, and he was portrayed as a tortured hero in the film. (One of my recurring suspicions is that every operative I talk to this year is secretly contemplating how he'll come off and who will play him in the next ''Game Change'' -- which of course Halperin and Heilemann are busy reporting.)
The film also sent Palin into a tizzy, complaining about its ''false narrative.'' The complaint brought to mind a line I highlighted years ago -- in 1993 -- from a profile in this magazine of David Gergen by Michael Kelly. ''Politics is not about objective reality, but virtual reality,'' Kelly wrote. ''What happens in the political world is divorced from the real world. It exists for only the fleeting historical moment, in a magical movie of sorts, a never-ending and infinitely revisable docudrama.''
Like their opponents in Boston, Obama's team prides itself on being grounded in ''objective'' campaign realities rather than the ''virtual'' ones spat forth by the news cycle. They knew Romney would be their opponent all along, they said. They knew the economy would be rough and they would be facing ''headwinds.'' They also knew that they would have to ''give some definition to Romney,'' as Axelrod put it, which is another way of saying they would have to caricature the former Massachusetts governor as a cold private-equity vulture with a penchant for secrecy and an indifference to the needs of the middle class as well as the gastric distresses of his long-dead dog. There is very little ''play in the electorate,'' Axelrod told me, meaning far fewer persuadable voters than there were four years ago.
When I visited the Obama headquarters in late July, I was asked to present two forms of identification before entering the offices, which are in a downtown office building on a floor the campaign asked me not to divulge, for security reasons. The nerve center is a sprawling room filled with hundreds of campaign workers, most of them under 25, many sitting under their college pennants. Like many campaigns -- and tech companies -- it is also something of a sweatshop (this is even more pronounced in the swing-state field offices), where 100-hour weeks are expected, outputs are closely monitored and discipline enforced. For every kid organizer whose political fervor is ignited on the Obama campaign, there is another -- and probably more -- who is not making his phone bank numbers, lagging behind ambitious co-workers bucking for administration jobs and resenting the revenge-of-the-nerds arrogance of his bosses. Still, the feel of youthful political energy was palpable as I passed row after row of desks en route to the men's room -- an unauthorized foray, it turned out, as all visitors require chaperones at all times. In a far corner was an area dedicated to the memory of Alex Okrent, a 29-year-old staff member who died earlier this summer after collapsing at his desk. Okrent, a veteran of two previous Obama campaigns -- 2004 and 2008 -- was a beloved figure here, and many of the Post-its affixed to the shrine were in the vein of ''Win It for Alex.'' Okrent's death hit the campaign hard; Obama called the staff from Washington, and Romney tweeted a message of condolence.
On this day, the Obama team was particularly giddy over Romney's mishaps on his recent tour of Europe and the Middle East. (''Mitt the Twit!'' the press secretary Ben LaBolt read aloud from his BlackBerry, quoting a London tabloid headline.) I met with four top officials in the office of the campaign manager, Jim Messina. They included Messina, LaBolt, Axelrod and the deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter. On a few occasions, I looked up to see all four simultaneously typing on their BlackBerries. They are wary of speaking on the record, for fear of compromising their message of discipline. ''I don't want to be telling Matt Rhoades everything we're doing,'' Messina told me, referring to his counterpart on the Romney campaign. When he did speak on the record, it was often with a mouthful of string cheese, around which he spewed a litany of poll data (''Univision says we're up 70-22 with Hispanics''), tech stats (''Facebook was one-ninth the size in 2008 than it is now'') and demographic trends (''the fastest growing population on Facebook is people over 50'').
I then headed down the hall for a brief separate interview with Cutter, whom I've known for years, going back to when she was John Kerry's spokeswoman. ''How are you?'' I asked.
''Are we on the record?'' she replied.
Nine days after Romney announced his selection of Paul Ryan, his aides were marveling at how much ''looser'' he had become. It was as if ''rapport'' was their approved theme of the week, and everyone was on message at all times. When I attended a joint Town Hall meeting on the quad of St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., a week before the start of the Republican Convention, Romney looked as if he was enjoying himself rather than following some ''look as if you're enjoying yourself'' stage direction. He sat in a chair a few feet away and cast an adoring gaze upon his new running mate. ''We're going to elect leadership,'' Ryan said, and then the bells of the campus church tolled to signal it was 11 a.m. ''At the 11th hour,'' Ryan quipped, a deft ad-lib that had the crowd laughing and cheering for several seconds. A few minutes later, Ryan said what will no doubt be a standard part of his stump repertory: when he and Romney win, he said, they will have ''the moral authority and the mandate'' to enact their agenda. ''Moral authority'' is one of the most depressing terms in politics, made more so by the fact that whoever wins will likely do it with barely more than 50 percent of the vote.
When I asked Obama's top aides in Chicago how the president's re-election would make Congressional Republicans any more likely to work with them, their response was: ''Our winning will teach them a lesson. It will make them look at themselves and realize that their positions are untenable. It will, finally, break the fever.''
I thought about this as I walked through the St. Anselm parking lot after the Romney event, past gridlocked cars, several of which loudly played the affirming sounds of conservative hosts on their radios. On this day, the feedback loop was atwitter over remarks by the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, Todd Akin, and his bizarre comments about ''legitimate rape,'' plus the report in Politico about the drunken, skinny-dipping escapades of a congressman in the Sea of Galilee. A few days later, the evangelist Rick Warren would cancel his ''civil forum,'' after neither campaign would sign on to participate. Two days after that, Romney would trot out the old birther canard in front of a cheering crowd in Michigan. So much for the campaign of ''big ideas'' we were promised when Ryan was announced as Romney's running mate.
My best moment in New Hampshire came when I met Jim Preisendorfer, a semiretired salesman from Concord. He had a white Fu Manchu and wore a big crucifix dangling over a ''Pro-life to the max'' T-shirt. I waited for him to get in my face about liberal media bias, something that happens a fair amount at Republican events, but he could not have been nicer or more thoughtful -- a Catholic, active in his church, completely despairing about politics. I couldn't help it, and trotted out my ridiculous Sauerkraut Summit idea (which a few minutes earlier I proposed to a longtime Romney spokesman, Kevin Madden, who looked at me as if I had sauerkraut between my ears). Preisendorfer liked the idea. But of course Obama and Romney would never do it, he said. Why? ''It's pride in themselves and fear in one another,'' Preisendorfer said. I think I knew what he meant. But if it did happen? ''It would be awesome,'' he said. ''Just for them to sit down and be human beings. It would give me hope. That would make me so proud.''
DRAWINGS (DRAWINGS BY KELSEY DAKE) (MM30-MM31; MM32; MM33; MM34; MM35)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/magazine/feel-the-loathing-on-the-campaign-trail.html
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1058 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Between the Acts
BYLINE: By DAVID BROOKS and GAIL COLLINS
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Sunday Review Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1370 words
GAIL COLLINS David, we're halfway through the convention process. We've spent quite a bit of time conversing about it in different venues and now -- print! I'm enjoying the conversing. It's just the conventions themselves I've come to hate.
DAVID BROOKS Are you kidding? These things should go on for weeks. Thursday night alone offered as much emotional volatility as a year of ''Real Housewives.'' Here were these incredibly moving stories of how Mitt Romney ministered to the infant Kate Finlayson and to young David Oparowski as they were ill or dying.
I was up in the PBS studio trying all the tricks emotionally repressed guys use to try to hide the tears in their eyes -- faking a sneezing fit, staring studiously at random points on the wall, trying to recall scenes from Marx Brothers movies.
For the life of me, I can't fathom why these stories of Romney's compassion haven't been in campaign ads all year. Why does the campaign hide its most effective testimonials? Are they that terrified of any mention of Mormonism?
GAIL Most of his many good deeds seem to have been done as a leader of his church, but I can't believe his party would think that was a bad thing. You're right that it was a high point. Too bad the entire viewing audience immediately forgot about it when Clint Eastwood started talking to an invisible president.
DAVID The Clint Eastwood appearance felt like the most nerve-racking three hours of my life. It was like a theme park ride: the Plunge of Terror. I now get flashbacks when I see an empty chair.
GAIL Yeah, it's not easy to upstage an entire convention, but Clint did it. However, I've heard that after he finally wandered off, Mitt Romney spoke. What did you think?
DAVID I'd say it was shockingly devoid of real policy proposals but revelatory about who he is and very effective. Romney was smart enough to stay within himself. It was heavy on the unironic Mayberry vibe, which is genuine. And he was compelling in the way he expressed his disappointment in Obama.
GAIL His challenge was to not look like an employer giving an upbeat prelude to the announcement that everybody was getting a 15 percent pay cut. Not sure he pulled it off.
DAVID The whole thing was like a Junior Achievement convention. It was all about small business, as if commercial activity is the only sphere of American life. But true to his faith, Romney is heavily committed to community. He spoke more about how to build social capital than all the Randians combined.
GAIL Speaking of Randians -- I've been wanting to ask you about Paul Ryan. You've written about how Ryan made a terrible mistake torpedoing the Simpson-Bowles plan for deficit reduction. But in his speech he attacked President Obama for -- failing to support Simpson-Bowles! That was, I believe, after he criticized the president for closing a Wisconsin auto plant that closed under George W. Bush.
DAVID It was weird. Part of the speech was compelling and sounded very much like Paul Ryan -- the indictment of the stimulus package and Obamacare. Part of it sounded like it was written by people with the intellectual moorings of jellyfish.
The stuff about the G.M. plant was stupid on many levels. Ryan voted for the auto bailout; the plant in his hometown was closed pre-Obama; an elemental fact of capitalism is that sometimes corporations close plants and are right to do so. If you've got a guy famous for truth-telling, why feed him a bunch of semi-deceptions?
The Simpson-Bowles section was more of the same. I've interviewed Ryan many times and I've never heard him utter sentiments remotely like that. He doesn't believe in their approach because he doesn't believe it fixes the Medicare problem. Yet there he was in the biggest speech of his life pretending he thought it was God's gift to policy making. Paul, sometimes you just have to put your foot down and tell the campaign you won't do it.
GAIL So we had one major speaker talking to an empty chair while another denounced the president for not doing things the speaker doesn't believe in.
DAVID The larger issue is that both campaigns have decided that deceptiveness carries no penalty. I know from conversations I've had that both campaigns do rigorous fact-checking. When the candidates say something partially or wholly false, they know exactly what they're doing.
GAIL I did like the Republican Mormon Haitian-American woman who is running for Congress in Utah. Possibly the most effective Republican Mormon Haitian-American speaker I've ever heard.
DAVID I don't know how to evaluate the other speakers since they were compelled to check their brains at the door. My question is: Why was there no mention of that ''You didn't build that'' line Obama once uttered?
I did like your friend, Mia Love, especially when she described what America meant to her: ''agency.'' Somebody's been a faithful attendee of the Objectivist Society meetings.
GAIL Before we move on to the Democrats, let's talk about conventions in general. I'm a big fan of in-person gatherings -- one block party is better than six months of Facebook friending. But the delegates haven't had a real role in ages, except to wander in front of the cameras wearing funny hats. And I've been noticing a lack of engagement even on that critical point. Just walking around under a big Stetson is not a sign of commitment.
DAVID The hats were terrible this year. The balloon drop, however, was the best I've seen -- steady, fluid, gradual, like a mountain stream. Was Ben Bernanke regulating it?
GAIL Perhaps things will improve this week, and the Democrats will arrive in North Carolina bedecked with six-tier depictions of the bailout of the auto industry on their heads.
DAVID You're too optimistic. A convention based on the theme ''It Could Be Worse'' is not going there.
GAIL I was sorry the hurricane gave the Republicans an excuse to toss out Donald Trump, who's become like Weird Uncle Ferd Who Lives in the Basement. If they're using him to raise money and rally the birthers, they should be forced to display him on TV, right alongside every single person of color running on the Republican line for any office higher than Board of Zoning Appeals.
DAVID I wonder if the Democrats are going to strain as hard to find white men. If you look at the polls you'll observe that white male Obama supporters are as rare as a Cinnabon on Michelle Obama's snack tray. Obama could end up below 40 percent among whites over all. I wonder if they'll pull in the cast of ''Pawn Stars'' to get the white working class vote.
GAIL A last thought about my convention obsession: they should be limited to one day. Ceremonial casting of ballots in the morning, speeches by bitter former presidential contenders and overly ambitious governors in the afternoon. Then each party should get two hours of prime time to introduce their ticket. Plus, if they want to keep the viewers from wandering off to the Alligator Wrestling Channel, a little decent entertainment. After Tampa, I know what happens to unsung country musicians. They wind up at the Republican convention, warming up the crowd for John McCain and Condoleezza Rice.
DAVID Geography is destiny. From now on, they should just hold the conventions in one of five cities: San Diego, Chicago, New Orleans (weather permitting), New York and Los Angeles. The other cities are just too generic. What downtown life they possess gets overwhelmed by the security rigmarole.
GAIL Lovely people in Tampa, but all I could think was: this is what would happen if you put the city of Des Moines in an asparagus steamer. But now we're going to Charlotte. Charlotte is nice.
DAVID I haven't spent a lot of time in downtown Charlotte, but I recall it mostly as a bunch of A.T.M.'s with parking. I'm actually curious to learn what President Obama plans to do if he's re-elected. I know he wants to weatherize a few more elementary schools, but is that it? If Tampa is about peering into Mitt Romney's heart, Charlotte will be about peering into Obama's policy larder. Is there anything there?
GAIL We shall see. At least the Democrats have a way longer list of movie stars to choose from, so I'm presuming they'll be able to find someone who will stick with the teleprompter.
DRAWING (DRAWING BY O.O.P.S.)
URL:
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1059 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Romney Stakes Hopes on Ohio, A Tactical Test
BYLINE: By JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY; Jim Rutenberg reported from Cincinnati, and Jeff Zeleny from Charlotte, N.C.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1367 words
CINCINNATI -- Fresh off his nominating convention, Mitt Romney is cranking up a well-financed political machine that will now bring its full force to bear on President Obama with a hailstorm of ads and nonstop campaigning.
But little of it may matter if Mr. Romney cannot win here in Ohio, where a loss would severely narrow his path to the White House.
That explains why the state has seen more presidential campaign ads than any other in the last three months, why it has assumed such a prominent place in the legal battles over voting rules, and why Mr. Romney, Mr. Obama and their running mates campaigned here over the Labor Day weekend.
''It's possible to win without Ohio,'' Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, the chairman of the Romney campaign here, said in an interview. ''But I wouldn't want to risk it.''
Mr. Portman and John A. Boehner, the speaker of the House, joined Mr. Romney and thousands of cheering supporters at Union Terminal here on Saturday for a rally that had the distinct high energy of a newly engaged general election campaign. Reprising a theme from his convention speech, that Mr. Obama had failed to live up to sky-high promises, Mr. Romney drew laughs from the crowd by saying, ''He famously said that he was going to slow the rise of the oceans,'' then thundering, ''Our promise to you is this: we're going to help the American people.''
Mr. Romney is running closely with Mr. Obama in most national polls, but the story is different in several states that will decide the race for the necessary 270 electoral votes. Many polls in those states show Mr. Obama holding an advantage over Mr. Romney as the Democrats prepare to open their convention on Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C. In a Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll released just over a week ago, Mr. Obama had a six-point advantage over Mr. Romney in Ohio for the second month in a row.
To give a sense of Mr. Romney's challenge: he could win Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Virginia -- all carried by Mr. Obama in 2008 -- and still fall short without Ohio and its 18 electoral votes.
The state, which has been doing better than the nation as a whole by some economic measures, will test whether Mr. Obama can successfully point to selective improvements in the economy, and whether Mr. Romney can make the case that with a Republican governor, in this instance John R. Kasich, conservative policies like reductions in government spending are already promoting job growth.
Democratic ads attacking Mr. Romney's refusal to release more tax returns and accusing him of presiding over the outsourcing of jobs while at Bain Capital have made it more difficult to gain the trust of voters here, his advisers said. The president has an edge of 18 percentage points over Mr. Romney in Ohio when voters are asked who cares more about their problems, according to the Quinnipiac/Times/CBS poll.
The campaign here also brings to life a key matchup of the race: the intensive get-out-the-vote organization of the Obama campaign versus Republicans who are racing to catch up and remain reliant on the energy of grass-roots conservatives.
''Ohio is a microcosm of this campaign,'' said Jim Messina, the campaign manager for Mr. Obama, pointing to increases in manufacturing and expansion in the automobile industry across the state, which have given the president a positive story to tell here.
No Republican in modern times has reached the White House without carrying Ohio, and the alternatives strike fear into Mr. Romney's quickly expanding team in the state.
In 2008, Mr. Obama won Ohio by four percentage points. At the Republican National Convention last week, Mr. Romney sought to appeal to voters who backed Mr. Obama but are now wavering, a strategy critical here in Ohio, where suburban women and independent voters around Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati are a main focus.
This county, Hamilton, has been reliably Republican, with Mr. Obama becoming the first Democrat to carry it since Lyndon Johnson.
''This is ground zero right here,'' said Rose Pietras, 66, as she worked the phones in Mr. Romney's volunteer office on the edge of town. ''This is about turnout.''
Mr. Portman said the Republican base is not enough. ''You're not going to get there without attracting Obama voters,'' he said.
The roster of deeply competitive states has remained virtually unchanged for months, with Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia narrowly divided. Wisconsin has become more competitive since Representative Paul D. Ryan joined the Republican ticket, offering a stronger appeal to voters in his home state.
While Mr. Obama still has far more paths to 270 electoral votes, given how he expanded the Democratic map four years ago, he is facing considerable resistance in some of those states.
He visited Iowa on Saturday for the third time in two weeks and mocked the Republican convention as a throwback to old ideas, saying: ''You might as well have watched it on a black-and-white TV.'' He will also make his second trip in a week to Colorado on Sunday before coming to Ohio.
On the eve of the Republican convention, a senior strategist with a Republican ''super PAC,'' who would share the group's strategic thinking only on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Romney would need a ''real surge'' and ''a reset to the dynamics there'' to gain an edge over Mr. Obama in Ohio.
With many automobile manufacturers and parts makers, Ohio's economy has benefited from the administration's bailout of the industry. The state's unemployment rate of 7.2 percent in July was more than a percentage point lower than the national average. And while Mr. Obama's aides do not feel overconfident, they are pleased to see that Democrats remain in command of the race, in a state where Republicans dominated in the 2010 elections.
Mr. Romney appeared to struggle with the blue-collar workers of this state during the primary campaign in March, just narrowly defeating former Senator Rick Santorum. Still, he performed well in most suburban areas, where turnout is expected to be greater in November.
In the last three months, Mr. Obama's campaign spent roughly $20 million to run commercials nearly 40,000 times here, according to the media analysis firm Kantar Media/CMAG. Mr. Romney spent more than $8 million to run more than 14,000 ads during the same period, but pro-Romney groups including American Crossroads helped Republicans match Mr. Obama ad for ad, according to CMAG.
With the formal start of the general election season, Mr. Romney's campaign has enough money to combine with the super PACs to flood television screens with anti-Obama advertising.
But the Republicans had a setback on Friday when a federal judge reversed a new state law that halted early voting on the weekend before Election Day. In 2008, that final weekend was seen as giving Mr. Obama an advantage, especially as African-American churchgoers organized trips to the polls on Sunday.
The early voting accounted for 100,000 ballots in 2008, roughly 2 percent of the total cast. That is no small number in such a hard-fought swing state, especially this year. Republicans said they would appeal the judge's ruling.
For now, Mr. Romney's aides can take heart that their convention, which featured personal testimonials from friends and acquaintances, appeared to give him a lift.
Arriving too late at Union Terminal to see Mr. Romney, Elizabeth Cartagena, 54, said: ''He helped people -- a lot of people. I saw his speech on the TV.'' She said she planned to vote for him also because ''he's of God, too. I'm Christian.''
PHOTO: Mitt and Ann Romney entering a rally on Saturday at Union Terminal in Cincinnati. Midterm gains in Ohio raised Republican hopes for retaking the state in the 2012 presidential election. (PHOTOGRAPH BY DAMON WINTER/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A17)
MAP: State of the Race: Current estimate, by The New York Times, of how each state is leaning.; CHART: Ohio and Florida are the most significant tossup states in the race between President Obama and Mitt Romney. If Mr. Romney does not win at least one of these states, there is no way for him to win based on the current leanings of the states. (A17)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/us/politics/in-a-tactical-test-mitt-romney-stakes-hopes-on-ohio.html
LOAD-DATE: September 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1060 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
In Colorado, Obama Takes Page From Unexpected Democratic Victory
BYLINE: By CARL HULSE
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; Pg. 16
LENGTH: 1000 words
DENVER -- As President Obama navigates the battleground states that will determine whether he wins a second term, his campaign strategists have unfolded a road map for one in particular. And they are following it closely as the best route to their destination.
Desperate to win Colorado and its nine electoral votes, the Obama campaign is trying to assemble the same coalition that Senator Michael Bennet built in 2010, when he managed to win a full term against a conservative Republican in a year in which Democrats struggled both in Colorado and nationally.
Mr. Bennet, a surprise pick to fill a Senate vacancy in 2009 who was considered to be at great peril of losing the seat, capitalized on a yawning gender gap and strong support among Hispanics to win. In the process, he showed the way for the Obama campaign to try to pull off a victory in the state despite his lagging popularity among white men.
''We did stitch together a winning coalition in 2010, and I think that coalition is part of the basis of what they are doing here in Colorado,'' said Mr. Bennet, who works closely with the White House and is assisting in the president's re-election effort.
Colorado, which will host the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, is unmistakably a top Obama target. The president has been to the state 11 times since being elected, and a visit on Sunday will be his seventh this year alone.
The campaign has opened more than 50 field offices in Colorado, compared with about a dozen for his Republican rival, Mitt Romney. It has also brought on members of Mr. Bennet's team, including his chief political strategist, Craig Hughes, to provide their local expertise.
At the moment, Colorado is considered a pure tossup. Most iterations of the electoral map show it to be essential not only for the president to win but also to provide a foundation of support in the West.
The Obama campaign believes that it has the advantage, given its edge in registering voters in the state and Mr. Romney's positions on immigration and women's issues.
''You'd rather be us than them,'' said Jim Messina, the president's campaign manager and a Denver-born former aide to Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who is widely recognized for his knowledge about what works for Democrats in the difficult political terrain of the Mountain States.
Republicans say they think Mr. Romney can carry Colorado because of dissatisfaction over the economy among its voters -- even those who supported Mr. Obama in 2008 and Mr. Bennet two years later. They expect social issues to play less of a role in the race. Still, they concede, it is very close.
''It could go either way,'' said Dick Wadhams, a former head of the state Republican Party and a Colorado campaign strategist. ''It is a game of inches.''
Democrats and Republicans believe that the outcome will be decided by voters in the suburban Denver counties of Arapahoe and Jefferson, particularly women but also Hispanics -- the same voters who were so crucial to Mr. Bennet in 2010.
He was up against Ken Buck, a state prosecutor who had won a primary against Jane Norton, a former lieutenant governor, despite some notable flubs, including his saying that he was a stronger candidate because ''I do not wear high heels.'' Remarks like that, and his opposition to abortion in the case of rape or incest, provided an opening for Mr. Bennet to reach out to Republican and independent women who were conservative on economic issues but were wary of tough social stances -- a hallmark of Colorado swing voters.
To gain ground, Mr. Bennet hammered Mr. Buck on the abortion issue and a rape case that he had declined to prosecute, which he explained by saying the victim might have had ''buyer's remorse.''
Mr. Bennet also ran an ad with a Denver obstetrician-gynecologist accusing Mr. Buck of being too extreme on the issue of women's health. Mr. Bennet's wife, Susan, and their three young daughters campaigned heavily for him.
The strategy paid off. Mr. Bennet won narrowly, by about 15,000 votes, but he piled up about twice as many votes as Mr. Buck among Hispanics and ended up with a 17-percentage-point edge among women -- the best showing in all of the Senate races that year.
The Obama campaign was clearly paying attention. Mr. Obama recently campaigned in the state with Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who got caught up in a battle over resistance to administration efforts to require health insurers to provide contraception. And the campaign is running ads in an effort to appeal to women.
One features two women discussing their fears about Mr. Romney being too extreme and out of touch on women's health issues and his opposition to Planned Parenthood. ''I think Mitt Romney would definitely drag us back,'' one of the women says.
No one expects Mr. Obama to rack up the kind of margin with women that Mr. Bennet did. But the campaign is hoping to make up that difference with an ambitious outreach to younger voters, who did not vote in large numbers in 2010.
Mr. Wadhams, the Republican strategist, said he thought that Democrats were overplaying their hand on abortion in Colorado and that socially moderate Republican women and independents who were willing to support the president and Mr. Bennet were open to Mr. Romney if he delivered the right appeal.
''They want to vote for Mitt Romney if he can give them the sense that he will make the economy better,'' Mr. Wadhams said. ''In this election, I think they are far more anxious -- absolutely terrified -- about the future of the economy.''
Mr. Bennet said he was convinced that women in Colorado would strongly favor the president, given the record of Republicans in Washington and Mr. Romney's views on issues they see as crucial.
''I am not sure there has been an election where women have a clearer choice,'' he said.
PHOTO: President Obama and Senator Michael Bennet at a Denver fund-raiser last year. Mr. Bennet's team is advising the president on his Colorado campaign. (PHOTOGRAPH BY JASON REED/REUTERS)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/us/politics/in-colorado-obama-takes-page-from-surprise-democratic-win.html
LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1061 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Road Shows Get Rolling For Romney And Obama
BYLINE: By JEREMY W. PETERS and JACKIE CALMES; Jeremy W. Peters reported from Cincinnati, and Jackie Calmes from Urbandale, Iowa. Trip Gabriel contributed reporting from Columbus, Ohio.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; Pg. 16
LENGTH: 949 words
CINCINNATI -- Big crowds cheered both of the presidential candidates on Saturday as Mitt Romney began a cross-country campaign swing here testing his momentum coming out of the Republican convention, and President Obama started his own tour heading into his convention this week.
A line of people that stretched for five city blocks awaited Mr. Romney as his motorcade pulled into Union Terminal here.
And inside there were so many people that the campaign had to redirect a few hundred of them into a small overflow room, where they crammed in shoulder to shoulder.
Later, thousands in Jacksonville, Fla., filled a courtyard and gave Mr. Romney and his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, a spirited reception.
Mr. Romney has often failed to spark much of a connection with his audiences, and along the campaign trail enthusiasm has sometimes been in short supply.
But inside a soaring Art Deco-style rotunda here, the candidate, joined by John A. Boehner, the speaker of the House, and Senator Rob Portman, delivered a vigorous and sharply focused speech -- complete with fresh punch lines -- that sent the audience into earsplitting roars.
Echoing a criticism of the president that he has been making more powerfully lately, Mr. Romney denounced Mr. Obama's first term as one of betrayed promises and failed leadership.
''One of the promises he made was he was going to create more jobs. And today, 23 million people are out of work or stopped looking for work or underemployed,'' Mr. Romney said. ''Let me tell you, if you have a coach that's zero and 23 million, you say it's time to get a new coach. It's time for America to see a winning season again, and we're going to bring it to them.''
Mr. Romney also confronted head-on a subject that he had been more reluctant to wade into: chastising Republicans for running up the deficit when they controlled Washington.
The more popular and convenient story line for many Republicans has often been to lay the blame for record deficits at the feet of the Obama administration.
''We're going to finally have to do something that Republicans have spoken about for a long time, and for a while we didn't do it,'' he said. ''When we had the lead we let people down.''
As Mr. Romney roused the crowd here, Mr. Obama sought to drum up momentum for his convention, which begins Tuesday. He started a four-day, four-state campaign trip on Saturday in Iowa, the state where he opened his quest for the presidency five years ago. In front of a crowd of 10,000 outside Des Moines, he said the Republican convention was a reminder of how backward-looking their vision for the country is.
''You might as well have watched it on a black-and-white TV,'' said Mr. Obama, to the applause and amusement of his audience. He offered a summary, ''Everything's bad, it's Obama's fault and Governor Romney is going to be the one who knows the secret to creating jobs and growing the economy.''
''There was a lot of talk about hard truths and bold choices, but nobody ever actually bothered to tell you what they were,'' Mr. Obama added. ''And when Governor Romney had his chance to let you in on his secrets, he did not offer a single new idea -- just retreads of the same old policies that have been sticking it to the middle class for years.''
It was Mr. Obama's seventh visit to the state this year and his 13th as president, reflecting the importance of this swing state's six electoral votes to his prospects of winning the necessary 270 votes in a close, unpredictable election.
On Monday, Mr. Obama will take a detour from campaigning to tour the storm damage in Louisiana, a solid Republican state, and then visit Virginia, a swing state, on Tuesday before arriving for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday.
Mr. Ryan also had a separate campaign stop of his own, visiting Ohio State University in the morning for the football team's season opener. He joined tailgaters and flipped some burgers on a grill, a skill that his mother, Betty, noted he had acquired working at McDonald's as a young man.
Since Mr. Romney picked Mr. Ryan as his running mate last month, the former Massachusetts governor has used his younger and spryer No. 2 to add some energy to campaign rallies. But the speech in Cincinnati nevertheless lit a fire in the audience while Mr. Ryan was in another part of the state.
The setting for Mr. Romney's speech had been the backdrop for another major political event. On Oct. 7, 2002, George W. Bush delivered a televised address from Union Terminal to make his case for the Iraq war.
Mr. Romney's speech hit some of the same notes that Mr. Romney made in Tampa, Fla., where he accepted his party's nomination on Thursday night. He accused the president of putting teachers' unions, not students, first. He said the president would raise taxes on successful small business owners. And he pledged to repeal the president's health care overhaul, which he called a ''big cloud'' raining over small businesses.
''America's going to come roaring back,'' Mr. Romney said as he concluded. ''We're going to get America strong again, for you, for your children, for the future.''
The language in the speech, complete with sports team metaphors and the ''roaring back'' line recalled the message delivered by a Romney campaign supporter in a Super Bowl car commercial that stirred considerable controversy when it aired: That supporter was Clint Eastwood.
This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.
PHOTO: President Obama in Urbandale, Iowa, during a campaign event on Saturday. It was his seventh visit to the state this year. (PHOTOGRAPH BY LUKE SHARRETT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A19)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/us/politics/next-to-native-status-claimed-by-ryan-in-the-drive-for-ohio.html
LOAD-DATE: September 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1062 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 2, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Week 986: Hear here! Week 986: Hear here!
BYLINE: Pat Myers
SECTION: Style; Pg. T20
LENGTH: 3665 words
"Our seedy pick of the week . . .""Moron Afghan refugees in a moment."" . . . rated by Rodent Track magazine . . ."
Invitational reader Bruce Ferguson gets a lot of his news and music from the radio, and while he's never had Invite ink, he clearly thinks in a Loserly way, as evidenced by the above phrases that he's heard on the air recently. This week: Give us a sentence or short dialogue that would be a lot funnier if a word in it were mistaken for a homophone of that word,as in Bruce's examples above.
Winner gets the Inkin' Memorial, the bobblehead that is the official Style Invitational trophy. Second place receives a Superfly Monkey, a stuffed animal that catapults from your fingertips when you pull back on its elastic arms and sails a remarkable distance while letting loose an annoying scream. This prize would have been a big hit when we gave it out for Week 826, except that its donor, Lois Douthitt, managed to win it back (this has happened to Invite prize-donors more than once; we don't use the term "Loser" for nothing). This time Phil Frankenfeld is the donor; let's see if he's luckier. See a video of Superfly in action at bit.ly/monkeyslingshot. Other runners-upwin their choice of a coveted Style Invitational Loser T-shirt, a yearned-for Loser Mug or the ardently desired Grossery Bag. Honorable mentions get a lusted-after Loser magnet. First Offenders get a smelly, tree-shaped air "freshener" (FirStink for their first ink). E-mail entries to losers@washpost.com or fax to 202-334-4312. Deadline is Monday, Sept. 10; results published Sept. 30 (online Sept. 27). No more than 25 entries per entrant per week. Include "Week 985" in your e-mail subject line or it might be ignored as spam. Include your real name, postal address and phone number with your entry. See contest rules and guidelines at wapo.st/inviterules. The subhead for this week's honorable mentions is by Tom Witte. Join the lively Style Invitational Devotees group on Facebook at on.fb.me/invdev. Report from Week 982
our annual-or-so song parody contest; this time the restriction was that you had to include an actual line from the song you were parodying. Many, many more great parodies appear in the online Invite at bit.ly/inv986, on everything from same-sex marriage to Tim Tebow to Vincent Gray, plus videos of some of the songs, and YouTube links to all the songs so you can listen to the music while your read the parody lyrics.
The winner of the Inkin'Memorial
The Congressional Theme Song(to "I Won't Grow Up," from "Peter Pan")We won't grow up!We don't wanna legislate.We are always out campaigningTill the next election date.We just cast votes for special perks;On all the rest, the filibuster works.We'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up - We're jerks!
We won't grow up!We will never compromise;To obstruct the other partyIs our one and only prize.We've pledged to veto every taxFor Grover Norquist and the super-PACs.We'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up -We're hacks! (Nan Reiner, Alexandria)
2Winner of the cute plush ulcer bacterium:(To "Another Brick in the Wall") We don't need no education,Texas is a thought-free zone.No evolution in the classroom:Teachers leave them kids alone.Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!We'll stop y'all with another brick in the wall.Our kids will all be just another hick in the mall. (Dixon Wragg, Santa Rosa, Calif.)
3 Friday, Maybe: The Derecho Song(To "Call Me Maybe") I like electrical stuff, I never can get enough,Not having power is rough, can't stand the dark and heat.I like to turn on a light, have AC running at night,Make sure my fridge is all right so I won't lose my meat.The rain was flowing, thunder sky was glowing,Hot night, wind was blowing,Not again, our power's going!Hey, I call Pepco, and then they say weWon't get back power till Friday, maybe. (Kathy Hardis Fraeman, Olney)
4 (To "Born to Run") In the day we work out on the streets, guaranteeing the American Dream.At night we glide through mansions of donors, basking in their esteem.Stung in the pages of the New York Times:We're well heeled, well connected, not deigning to explain old crimes.Ann, this task rips the stories from our past.Your horse and Seamus, they always wanna blame us.We've gotta hit Barack till we've won'Cause champs like us, baby, we were born to run. (Mike Gips, Bethesda)
Subpar-odies:honorable mentions (To "Let It Snow") Oh, the weather outside is frightful,Summer's hot both day and nightful.Every winter leaves us aglow:There's no snow! There's no snow! There's no snow! [Bridge:] But the scientists can't be right.Climate studies don't fool me, folks.Phony data's been brought to light.Global warming is just a hoax!
Soon the heat will show signs of stopping,Average temps will start to dropping.That's the truth 'cause a Fox News showTells me so, tells me so, tells me so. (Chris Doyle, Ponder, Tex.)
(To "The Hokey Pokey")You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out;You've trashed your brand-new shoes, and profanities you shout;A steaming pile of excrement has turned your plans around;Who let the Great Dane out? (Beverley Sharp, Montgomery, Ala.)
(To "White Rabbit") One pill makes you largerAnd two pills wow the galsAnd with the lift we'll give youYou'll be the envy of your pals.For Cialis, click this link now. (Mike Gips)And last:The Empress's Invitation(To "Side by Side")Oh, we ain't got a barrel of money,Even for jokes that are funny,But we'll send you a shirt;Send us your dirt;Snide! Be snide! (Beverley Sharp)
Still running - deadline Tuesday night - is Week 985, our contest featuring the cartoons of Bob Staake. See bit.ly/invite985.
"Our seedy pick of the week . . .""Moron Afghan refugees in a moment."" . . . rated by Rodent Track magazine . . ."
Invitational reader Bruce Ferguson gets a lot of his news and music from the radio, and while he's never had Invite ink, he clearly thinks in a Loserly way, as evidenced by the above phrases that he's heard on the air recently. This week: Give us a sentence or short dialogue that would be a lot funnier if a word in it were mistaken for a homophone of that word, as in Bruce's examples above.
Winner gets the Inkin' Memorial, the bobblehead that is the official Style Invitational trophy. Second place receives a Superfly Monkey, a stuffed animal that catapults from your fingertips when you pull back on its elastic arms and sails a remarkable distance while letting loose an annoying scream. This prize would have been a big hit when we gave it out for Week 826, except that its donor, Lois Douthitt, managed to win it back (this has happened to Invite prize-donors more than once; we don't use the term "Loser" for nothing). This time Phil Frankenfeld is the donor; let's see if he's luckier. See a video of Superfly in action at bit.ly/monkeyslingshot. Other runners-upwin their choice of a coveted Style Invitational Loser T-shirt, a yearned-for Loser Mug or the ardently desired Grossery Bag. Honorable mentions get a lusted-after Loser magnet. First Offenders get a smelly, tree-shaped air "freshener" (FirStink for their first ink). E-mail entries to losers@washpost.com or fax to 202-334-4312. Deadline is Monday, Sept. 10; results published Sept. 30 (online Sept. 27). No more than 25 entries per entrant per week. Include "Week 985" in your e-mail subject line or it might be ignored as spam. Include your real name, postal address and phone number with your entry. See contest rules and guidelines at wapo.st/inviterules. The subhead for this week's honorable mentions is by Tom Witte; the alternative headline for the "next week's results" line was submitted by both Jeff Contompasis and Nan Reiner. Join the lively Style Invitational Devotees group on Facebook at on.fb.me/invdev.
Report from Week 982 Our annual-or-so song parody contest: This time the restriction was that you had to include an actual line from the song you were parodying. Click on the link in each song to hear the melody on YouTube; I've found that the best way to do this is to click on the link, start up the video at the specified point (one some of them, you have to wait five seconds so you can skip the rest of the commercial) and then go back to the parody lyrics while you hear the music - it's fun to sing along, too, although this is not recommended during certain religious services. The winner of the Inkin' Memorial
The Congressional Theme Song(to "I Won't Grow Up," from "Peter Pan") We won't grow up!We don't wanna legislate.We are always out campaigningTill the next election date.We just cast votes for special perks;On all the rest, the filibuster works.We'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up - We're jerks!
We won't grow up!We will never compromise;To obstruct the other partyIs our one and only prize.We've pledged to veto every taxFor Grover Norquist and the super-PACs.We'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up -We're hacks! (Nan Reiner, Alexandria, Va.)
2.Winner of the cute plush ulcer bacterium:(To "Another Brick in the Wall") We don't need no education,Texas is a thought-free zone.No evolution in the classroom:Teachers leave them kids alone.Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!We'll stop y'all with another brick in the wall.Our kids will all be just another hick in the mall. (Dixon Wragg, Santa Rosa, Calif.)
3.Friday, Maybe: The Derecho Song(To "Call Me Maybe")I like electrical stuff, I never can get enough,Not having power is rough, can't stand the dark and heat.I like to turn on a light, have AC running at night,Make sure my fridge is all right so I won't lose my meat.The rain was flowing, thunder sky was glowing,Hot night, wind was blowing,Not again, our power's going!Hey, I call Pepco, and then they say weWon't get back power till Friday, maybe. (Kathy Hardis Fraeman, Olney, Md.)
4.(To "Born to Run") In the day we work out on the streets, guaranteeing the American Dream.At night we glide through mansions of donors, basking in their esteem.Stung in the pages of the New York Times:We're well heeled, well connected, not deigning to explain old crimes.Ann, this task rips the stories from our past.Your horse and Seamus, they always wanna blame us.We've gotta hit Barack till we've won'Cause champs like us, baby, we were born to run. (Mike Gips, Bethesda, Md.)
Subpar-odies: Honorable mentions (To "Let It Snow") Oh, the weather outside is frightful,Summer's hot both day and nightful.Every winter leaves us aglow:There's no snow! There's no snow! There's no snow! [Bridge:] But the scientists can't be right.Climate studies don't fool me, folks.Phony data's been brought to light.Global warming is just a hoax!
Soon the heat will show signs of stopping,Average temps will start to dropping.That's the truth 'cause a Fox News showTells me so, tells me so, tells me so. (Chris Doyle, Ponder, Tex.)
(To "The Hokey Pokey")You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out;You've trashed your brand-new shoes, and profanities you shout;A steaming pile of excrement has turned your plans around;Who let the Great Dane out? (Beverley Sharp, Montgomery, Ala.)
(To "White Rabbit") One pill makes you largerAnd two pills wow the galsAnd with the lift we'll give youYou'll be the envy of your pals.For Cialis, click this link now. (Mike Gips)Aboard US Airways Express 3329 Into National(To "One" from "A Chorus Line") One - runway at the airport all the planes have got to use.Two - opposite directions air controllers can choose.Sometimes a change in the weather may flip your sights,But don't you think you should notify all the flights?One - moment till collision, time to kiss our butts goodbye.Choose a plane to turn and fly away - Hey,You! Try - accident prevention!Do I really have to mentionWe're the one! (Nan Reiner)
To "Castle on a Cloud" from "Les Misérables" (sung by the adorable waif Bruce Yanovitch, age 7) There is a castle on a cloud;Mom has to work there while I sleep.So many floors to scrub and sweep,Big, dirty castle on a cloud.There is a man dressed really nice;I asked him one time for his advice.I'm just a kid, but I kid you not:He said, "You're poor. Get rich. You missed a spot."
I know a place where mom stays home.There is a lift in that garage.Dogs in the car are not allowed.Poo trickles down here from that cloud. (Amanda Yanovitch, Midlothian, Va.)
To "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" (start at 0:23) His bevy of homes can be quite satisfying;Oh, Money is Mitt Romney's friend.His large pleasure domes leave observers oh-mying,Also, crying "Oh, my stars!"At elevators for his cars.He should know, things come and go,And we all lose our charm in the end,But meanwhile his kitty has him sitting pretty;Money is Mitt Romney's friend.
A trip to New Hampshire is quite energizing;Money is Mitt Romney's friend.And his "summer camp" you would not find surprising;All creature comforts within reach,And many feet of private beach.He's your guy when stocks are high,But the man simply can't comprehendThat we are just plain folks; we're not like his Bain folks;Money is Mitt Romney's friend. (Mae Scanlan, Washington)
To "Oklahoma!" (start at 0:45) H. pylori, where you wind up weepin' from the painAnd the meals you eat can have no heatAs an ulcer makes your life insane! H. pylori, every night I feel I'm gonna die-- Chew a lot of chalk and call the doc,Hopin' he'll have somethin' else to try.Don't know how much more I can stand,And I stand to consume food that's bland.So when I cry, Yeeow! Ayipioee-aiiieee!I'm only cryin', Please, let me dine, H. pylori,H. pylori. H. py-! (Jeff Contompasis, Ashburn, Va.)To "Master of the House" from "Les Miz"(start at 1:00) Master of the house, Keeper of the zoo:Speaker Boehner has an awful job to do. Dealing with the nuts. Holding down debate;Has to keep tea party crazies voting straight.All House members loathe each other,Eric Cantor wants his spot,Anger causes facial flushes. So to cover up he tans a lot. (Travis McKinney, San Antonio)
To "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from "Les Miz" Do you hear the people sing?It's a relentless Broadway tuneThat you pay a hundred bucks to hearOn Sunday afternoon.When the thumping in your earsCauses your head to start to throb,That is the time to up and leave "Les Misérables." (Christopher Lamora, Guatemala City)
To "Love and Marriage"(start at 0:30) Same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage,An institution that we must disparage!Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathy is proud to say it's psychopathy.[Bridge] Try, try, try to celebrate it, it's an illusion.Try, try, try, and you will only come to this conclusion:Guy-guy marriage, gal-gal marriage,Same-sex weddings are a gross miscarriage.God has told us, brother, you can't have one spouse like the other. (Chris Doyle)
To "Blowin' in the Wind" How many roads must a man walk downBefore he can flag down a cab?How many squats must a fat man performBefore he can work off his flab?Yes, and how many weights must he lift up and downBefore he can strengthen an ab?The answer, my friend, is one more than he can,The answer is one more than he can. (Robert Schechter, Dix Hills, N.Y.)"Fugue for Tinhorns" (from "Guys and Dolls") I got the horse right here,Her name's Rafalca, dear,It's your Olympic sport but I'll be nowhere near.Can't do, can't do. Can't be at Grand Prix with you.Won't watch on TV to seeHow well she'll do.The London games are nice,But Ann, I've good adviceBecause the press has burned me once or twice.Can't view, can't view dressage like the rich folk doAnd win the election too. Can't do. Who knew? (Chris Doyle)
To "That's Entertainment!" The clown with his pants falling down In a trance while he dreamt of romance,Taken in to explain it's no sinAt his arraignment.The light's on Fred Willard tonightAs he's tried with his lawyer beside,Standing tall when he gives it his allAt his arraignment! (Jeff Contompasis)To "Crying" by Roy Orbison I mulled Jindal for the spice;There was Rice, she'd be nice;And you, Portman, were first,But the right wanted worst.So I stopped and said, "No, no"Oh, you wished me wellEn route to hellSince I'd picked Ry-y-y-an over you ... (Kevin Dopart, Washington)
To "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"
SuperPAChydermalCampaignFundingHocusPocus,Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious,Secret bundled megabucks can make a roar ferocious:SuperPAChydermalCampaignFundingHocusPocus.(Come-get-a-senator-there's-one-here-to-buy, come-get-a-senator-there's-one-here-to-buy!)
When I was just a lad in school I learned this truth by rote:The thing that makes this country great is called "one man, one vote."But Citizens United has changed everything we teach:"Look, boys and girls! A corporation can buy extra speech." Oh. . . (Nan Reiner)
To "Bennie and the Jets" Hey, Tim, what's the news this morning?They signed you as a backup, so you should have seen the warning.Did Jesus really want you coming over here?The media will watch your actions all throughout the year. You say that you're happy, you've got no regrets;Ooh, but your team's spaced out, T-T-T-Timmy and the Jets.Oh, but they're weird and they're wonderful,They're any newspaper's dream.You throw just like my mom, but fans are calm,For you've brought God's approval on this team.Oh, Timmy and the Jets . . . (Matt Monitto, Elon, N.C.)
Biden's Lament(To "Oops! I Did It Again"; start at 0:51) Oops! I did it again!I dropped the F-bomb and thrilled the newsmen.Obama's boiling -Oops! Told bunker's locale,No PR knowhow,I'm not intelligent! (Phyllis Reinhard, East Fallowfield, Pa.)To "I'm Flying" from "Peter Pan" I'm flying!Over bars, over vault;Can I land without fault? I'm trying.I'm spinning!On the beam, on the floor;No one can touch my score. I'm winning!I just beat the best from everywhere,So give it a rest about my hair!I'm flying!Ponytail held with clips we all wear to do flips.I don't sport a weave - but somehow I achieve.When you can do the same, I might receive your catty peeve.I'm flying! (Nan Reiner)
To "Camelot" It's true! It's true! The GOP stands firm:For President Obama? Just one term. . . A law was made a distant moon ago here,But now it seems that there are almost noneSince "compromise" became a dirty word hereIn Washington . . . (Dave Hanlon, Woodbridge)
Rover's Serenade(To "L.O.V.E") "R" is red, on Mars it's everywhere,"O" is OMG, we made it there!"V" is very, very extraordinary"E," I've got my eye on "R" that rockin' Mohawk Guy.Oh, Cur-iosity, three cheers to you!Sure shows what the U.S.A. can do.Works much better than weEver thought, and now we can see Uncle Martin's point of view. (Kathy Hardis Fraeman)
To the "Barney and Friends" theme I love you, you love me,Though we're not a "biblical family."And we'll celebrate our love in a non-biblical way,Making out at Chik-fil-A." (Mark Raffman, Reston)
To "Point of No Return" You know that once upon a timeI hoped to run for veep,And gave 10 years of tax returnsMcCain would read and weep.But now there's no getting meTo show the world the facts.I'm at the point of no returns,And you won't learn what I paid in tax. (Chris Doyle)
Prescriptions for Disaster (To "Manhattan")Nowadays, I take Viagra,'Cause it always causes aggra-vation when I flop again,And need to stop again . . . Constantly I have conniptions,Fretting over my prescriptions.I got four score; soon I'll get more.Here in Manhattan, I'm havin' statin overload.All over my abode they're stowed.So much ingestin' in my intestineCauses woe.Twelve times a day I go,When balmy breezes blow, to and fro.(chorus) I'm gonna keep taking every med,Till finally I am dead.Now where's the Prozac? It's just a vial of joy. (Stephen Gold, Glasgow, Scotland)To "Seventy-Six Trombones" Seventy-six grams fat in the chocolate mousseAnd a hundred and ten more grams in the pie.It is easy to stuff, of course, quite enough to choke a horseIn the merest twinkling of an eye.
[bridge] They've a list of all the luscious things that we should eat:Turnip greens, fava beans, yogurt and tofu,Wilted kale and turkey tail and soup of beet;No red meat; it isn't good - for - you.So our conscience nags us constantly with healthy tips,Thundering, thundering, louder than before.We chomp a couple bacon strips, and feel them settle on our hips,And think, what the hell, let's have some more! (Mae Scanlan)
And last:The Empress's Invitation(To "Side by Side")Oh, we ain't got a barrel of money,Even for jokes that are funny,But we'll send you a shirt;Send us your dirt;Snide! Be snide! (Beverley Sharp)Still running - deadline Tuesday night - is Week 985, our contest featuring the cartoons of Bob Staake. See bit.ly/invite985.
Visit the online discussion group The Style Conversational, in which the Empress discusses today's new contest and results along with news about the Loser Community - and you can vote for your favorite among the inking entries, since you no doubt figured the Empress chose the wrong winner. If you'd like an e-mail notification each week when the Invitational and Conversational are posted online, write to the Empress at losers@washpost.com (note that in the subject line) and she'll add you to the mailing list. And on Facebook, join the far more lively group Style Invitational Devotees and chime in.Next week's results: Limerixicon IX, or, more succinctly, LimerIXicon, our annual contest for limericks focusing on words from one sliver of the alphabet (this time Eq-Ez).
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1063 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 2, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Eight Questions
BYLINE: By Dan Balz
SECTION: A section; Pg. A26
LENGTH: 2125 words
1What is President Obama's most important objective?
Mitt Romney began his convention in Tampa last week with a long to-do list. President Obama's is shorter but no less daunting. This is not Denver 2008. There probably won't be any Greek columns when he speaks in the stadium Thursday night. The president's task, after almost four years in office, will be to persuade voters disappointed by what has happened that he knows how to make the next term better than the first.
There are some obvious objectives. He'll want to keep forcing the election to be a choice and not just a referendum on his record. He'll want his convention to draw sharp contrasts with Romney. But some Democrats say the Obama campaign has already done a good job of that during the summer. They believe that it's time for Obama to focus on the future.
Republicans see Obama in a tough spot. They argue that voters believe that Obama over-promised in 2008 and didn't deliver. As GOP strategist Chris Henick put it, Obama has "fatigued the bully pulpit" and needs to change that. Other Republicans say he has to answer the question posed by Paul Ryan, the GOP vice-presidential nominee, at the Tampa convention: Without a change in leadership, why will families be better off in the next four years?
Obama has accomplishments to point to: The auto bailout has helped turn around the auto industry. He's never sold his health-care program, but he can try to show how things will be better as that law continues to take effect. He made the decision to send a SEAL team to kill Osama bin Laden. But he also has to persuade voters that everything he did has helped set the foundation for a true recovery.
2How can Obama articulate a convincing defense of his economic record?
The defense will start by stating the obvious: that Obama inherited a terrible economic situation, so bad that a majority of Americans still blame the current state of the economy on former president George W. Bush. But at the Republican convention in Tampa, Bush's brother Jeb called out the president, challenging him to stop blaming his predecessor and start taking responsibility.
Obama will be defending a record that has kept unemployment above 8 percent for 42 consecutive months. Long-term unemployment is having a corrosive effect on the lives of many Americans. Although there are some bright spots - the housing sector has shown signs of life recently - voters aren't convinced that a real recovery has taken hold.
It's often been said that claiming things could have been worse is hardly an effective message, but Obama's team has often made that argument. Had Obama not done what he did, they say, the country could have plunged into a depression. But what hurts Obama now is the persistence of high unemployment and slow growth.
Explaining why is not going to be easy. Instead, a number of Democrats say, this is why Obama must draw a contrast with Romney. Tad Devine, a top adviser in the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry, suggested that Obama steal a line from Ronald Reagan and say as the Gipper did, "Our opponents began this campaign hoping that America has a poor memory. Well, let's take them on a little stroll down memory lane." Of course, Reagan was dealing with a recovery with far higher growth rates than those of today.
One top Democratic strategist said, "His most convincing defense of his economic record is contrast and comparison with the other side's proposals moving forward. If he is defending his record, he is not doing what he needs to do."
3Will Bill Clinton overshadow everyone else?
If you don't know the answer to this question, you don't know Bill Clinton. The former president will overshadow everything and everyone - at least for the brief time he is on stage in Charlotte. But he is savvy enough to know that he is there in a supporting role to help win Obama's reelection. He won't try to overshadow the president, but he'll take up plenty of space.
One measure of the potential impact of Clinton's speech is the fact that his successor, George W. Bush, wasn't ever on the stage in Tampa. Bush would be of no help to Romney. Clinton is revered by Democrats and still able to appeal to independents.
When Obama has asked him, Clinton has delivered a more effective defense of the president's record than virtually anyone else, including at times the president. They once were rivals, when Hillary Rodham Clinton was running for president, but they've found reasons to become allies. Clinton was accused of undermining Obama when he praised Romney's business record earlier this year, but there's no doubt that he will have Obama's back in Charlotte.
He embodies something Obama needs to get across to people, an economic success story of a Democratic president. Republicans argue that some of Clinton's chief accomplishments - welfare reform and a balanced budget - appealed to the middle of the electorate, while Obama's agenda has appealed only to his base.
Clinton's critique of the Republican agenda will be critical in helping persuade skeptical voters that Obama is still a better bet for the next four years than Romney. But overshadow the president? Obama is no slouch when it comes to big speeches. However Clinton performs, the big speech in Charlotte will still be Obama's on Thursday night.
4Will Vice President Biden lead the attacks on Mitt Romney?
It would be a surprise if he didn't attack, given the fact that vice presidents are generally assigned that role. But he won't be the only one. Given what the Obama campaign has been doing all summer, attacks likely will start with the opening night program Tuesday and carry through to Thursday night.
As one Democrat said, if the Democrats wait for Biden on Thursday to lead the attacks, they will have wasted the first two nights. Republicans Whit Ayres and Jon McHenry predict that every speaker, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, will attack Romney, "which is probably a mistake."
Biden obviously has another role and it's one reason he was picked to be on the ticket in 2008. He speaks to a constituency that long has been resistant to the president: white working-class voters. Biden speaks their language and will try again to be a validator for Obama with these voters.
The vice president, of course, can be an unguided missile, thought it's doubtful he'll be given the kind of freedom that the Romney campaign gave to Clint Eastwood in Tampa to ad lib his way through his assigned time. Biden can speak extemporaneously and at length about a lot of subjects, but the stakes are high enough - for Obama's reelection and Biden's political standing - that he'll likely see this as a time to choose his sharp words carefully.
5What is Michelle Obama's role at the convention?
The first lady was a big star in Denver four years ago and remains widely admired. Like Ann Romney, she can help remind people of Obama as a husband and father and warm up someone who can seem cool and distant.
"The president's role is to present a high-altitude vision for the country," said Democratic strategist Nathan Daschle. "Michelle Obama, on the other hand, can connect us on an emotional level to the president. Barack Obama is academic and a bit removed. This is a weakness as much as it's a strength. Michelle Obama is much warmer and can provide that level of emotional connection we don't get from the president."
Michelle Obama can help in other ways. With the Obama campaign trying to make the gender gap as big as possible, she can counter appeals to women at the Republican convention by some of the female speakers, though Ann Romney will be off limits.
The first lady can also play a big role in helping to energize the base. She is a keeper of the 2008 flame. Democrats suffer from a potential enthusiasm gap, which is just one of the ways in which 2012 is different from 2008. Whatever Michelle Obama can do to try to get Democrats once again fired up and ready to go will be a measure of the success of her speech.
6What is Obama's message for white working-class voters - or should he not worry about them?
Obama can't afford to ignore or take for granted any voters. "We can't write off any constituency, certainly not one that large," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "We won't win those voters, but there is a difference between losing by 20 points and losing by 40 points. The message is simple: Mitt Romney is a symbol of everything that's wrong with our economy."
Democrats have been losing white working-class voters for years, and they seem particularly resistant to Obama's appeals. He struggled with them in many of the industrial-state primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. He lost them in the general election, and he has been trailing significantly among these voters in polls all spring and summer.
But by winning big majorities of African Americans, Latinos, younger single women and very well-educated voters, Obama can afford to lose the white working-class vote. He just can't get wiped out with that constituency.
To prevent further erosion, the president needs to make his case that, whatever these voters may think of him, Romney would be worse. It's a classic class-warfare message wrapped in the rhetoric of moving forward as the one to rebuild the economy.
By attacking Romney all summer for his record at Bain Capital, the Obama campaign is trying turn the Republican nominee into the guy who fires people. But Obama needs to do more than just try to disqualify Romney. He'll be on the offensive, but will he have a credible message to struggling middle-class voters?
7Will attacks or positive messaging persuade undecided voters to support Obama?
Obama's campaign has been on the attack all summer - in its advertising, its messages of the day, its conference calls and its tweets - in an effort to disqualify Romney as an alternative. Republicans say that's because Obama can't defend his economic record and has nothing of note to be positive about.
Voters say they dislike negative ads but studies show that people process the information in those commercials quickly and often get valuable information from them. Voters dislike the worst of the ads they see, particularly those that are too personal. But contrast ads can do more to move voters than personal attacks or purely positive ads.
Still, undecided independent voters are turned off by the discord in Washington and the negative tone of politics generally. Obama has been effective in drawing contrasts with what Romney has advocated, but can't risk losing his advantage on likability. As one Democrat put it, "His largest asset four years ago was being thought of above politics and truly post-partisan. He needs to recapture some of that notion and leave the hard-hitting stuff to others."
8Who will be jockeying in Charlotte for attention for 2016?
Because this is Obama's last campaign, win or lose, one of the subthemes of the convention in Charlotte will be the speculation about who will lead the party four years from now.
In Tampa, there was considerable focus on the rising generation of Republicans who, if Romney loses, will be competing for their party's nomination in 2016. Republicans will have a large cast of younger leaders from which to choose.
Democrats have a different dynamic. The conversation in Charlotte will start with questions about two members of the administration: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Biden.
Clinton has said she will leave her post at the end of the year and has given no indication that she wants to run for president again. But she'll be under tremendous pressure to do so. Biden has wanted to be president since he first ran in 1988. Until he says he won't run, he, too, could block some younger Democrats.
If neither of them decides to run, then the list could be long: governors, senators, other members of the Cabinet, even Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, if his keynote address lights up the arena the way Obama's did in Boston eight years ago.
"Charlotte will be one-stop shopping for the operatives, activists, donors and other core players that will help some of these potential candidates establish themselves and get traction in the invisible primary that begins on November 7th," Democratic strategist Michael Feldman said.
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1064 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 2, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
'What America needs is jobs, lots of jobs'
SECTION: ; Pg. G02
LENGTH: 1312 words
Mitt Romney accepted the Republican nomination for the presidency in Tampa. ¶ The candidate declared that "what America needs is jobs, lots of jobs." He has called for an extension of tax cuts due to expire at all income levels at year's end and has proposed an additional 20 percent cut in tax rates across the board. He has yet to sketch out the retrenchment in tax breaks that he promises to prevent deficits from rising. ¶ Top Republican contributors say they back Romney because they agree with his small-government philosophy or oppose President Obama's new regulations on banks and the health-care industry. ¶ Romney's campaign and Republicans have outraised Obama and Democrats for the past three months. ¶ In excess of $500 million has been spent on campaign TV commercials so far, almost all of it in the battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.
Business
Bank of America is lagging behind other banks in meeting its requirement to reduce customer mortgage balances under a $25 billion foreclosure settlement with the government, according to a report. More than 137,000 customers have received an average of nearly $77,000 in relief under the agreement.
Citigroupagreed to pay $590 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by investors alleging that the New York bank failed to disclose its exposure to toxic subprime mortgage debt.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Royal Dutch Shell would be allowed to start "certain limited preparatory activities" for oil drilling in the environmentally sensitive waters off Alaska's northwest coast.
A Japanese court dismissed Apple's patent infringement claim against Samsung, a significant legal bounceback for the South Korean tech giant as the rivals wage a global battle over intellectual property.
Best Buy founder Richard Schulze reached an agreement allowing him to conduct due diligence in his effort to acquire the company. Schulze can bring a fully financed, definitive proposal to the company within 60 days, and if that offer is rejected, he must wait until January to pursue an acquisition through other means, the company said.
A former Motorola software engineer was sentenced to four years in prison for stealing trade secrets from the company. Hanjuan Jin was accused of working simultaneously for Motorola, now known as Motorola Solutions, and for Kai Sun News (Beijing) Technology, also known as SunKaisens, which was affiliated with China's military.
Barclaysnamed Antony Jenkins as its new chief executive, as shares in the crisis-hit group dropped following news of a new investigation into the bank's deals. Jenkins fills the post vacated by Bob Diamond in the wake of a scandal over attempts to manipulate a key interest rate index.
Amazon.com says it has sold out of its Kindle Fire tablet amid expectations of a new model for the holiday season.
Johnson & Johnson will pay $181 million to settle claims by 36 states that it improperly marketed he antipsychotic drugs Risperdal and Invega.
Lexmark is jettisoning its inkjet printers and laying off 1,700 workers as paper becomes increasingly passe in an age of ever-sleeker digital devices and online photo albums.
Science Applications International, based in McLean, said it plans to split into two public companies, taking a step to unwind a strategy that attempted to more tightly integrate its historically independent units. The decision comes months after SAIC appointed its fourth chief executive, retired Air Force Gen. John P. Jumper, with a mandate to reenergize the business.
General Motors will temporarily close the Detroit area plant that makes the Chevrolet Volt next month to control inventory and prepare to make a new model of the Chevrolet Impala.
Ford Motor Co. says its Focus is on track to be the best-selling car in the world this year, trumping the Toyota Corolla. In the first half of 2012, it sold almost 27,000 more than the perennial bestseller.
Deals
Hertz Global acquired competitor Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group for $2.3 billion. Hertz will be paying $87.50 per share of Dollar Thrifty stock.
New York Times Co. is selling its troubled online information service, About.com, to IAC/InterActiveCorp, the parent company of Ask.com, for $300 million in cash. That offer trumped a $270 million bid from Answers.com.
Deltek, based in Herndon, will be acquired by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo in a $1.1 billion deal that would turn the public company into a private firm. Deltek is best known for providing software to help government contractors and professional services firms manage their projects.
Economy
Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke said that the central bank plans to respond forcefully to the nation's sluggish recovery and gave a broad defense of the Fed's actions to date to keep the economy growing. In remarks in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Bernanke did not hint that new action was imminent, but in uncharacteristically direct language, he said the Fed intends to be "forceful . . . in supporting a sustainable recovery."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and expressed confidence that Italy's austerity drive will help push down its borrowing costs.
Spain's recession deepened amid the government's austerity push and a slump in consumer spending. As data suggest ongoing capital flight, the government announced more reforms and a bank bailout.
Finance ministers from the Group of Seven nations called on oil-producing countries to increase output, saying, "We remain vigilant of the risks to the global economy." Oil futures rose nearly 1 percent after the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement reported that 93 percent of crude production from the Gulf of Mexico has been shut by Hurricane Isaac.
Retailers including Target and Macy's reported August sales that rose 6 percent, trade group International Council of Shopping Centers said.
U.S. consumer confidence fell in August by the highest rate in 10 months as households grew more pessimistic about job prospects and the economic outlook.
U.S. student-loan debt rose 1.1 percent to $914 billion in the second quarter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported. Ninety-day delinquency rates for student loans increased to 8.9 percent from 8.7 percent in the first quarter.
The jobless rate in the Washington area held steady at 5.4 percent in July.
Washington
The Federal Aviation Administration is starting a process to study the use of iPads and other electronic devices on flights, with a timeline that means it will take at least until March 2013 for a recommendation.
The Government Printing Office has signed an agreement with Apple to sell some federal publications in e-book form for iPads and e-readers.
Transitions
Malcolm W. Browne- a Pulitzer-winning journalist whose photograph of a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire became an indelible image of the Vietnam War - died at 81.
Occupy Wall Street plans to mark its first anniversary next month by trying to encircle the New York Stock Exchange.
Warren Buffett is celebrating his 82nd birthday by giving each of his three children a big present: about $600 million worth of his company's stock for their charitable foundations.
- From The Post and news services
$8.5 billionin legal global arms trade
The value of the legal international trade in small arms, light weapons, and their parts and ammunition is more than double the estimate of $4 billion in 2006. The 2012 Small Arms Survey attributes the climb to large-scale government purchases, especially during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts; increased spending by U.S. civilians on foreign weapons and ammunition; and better data.
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1065 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 2, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Peevish progressives
BYLINE: George F. Will
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A17
LENGTH: 783 words
With Americans, on average, worth less and earning less than when he was inaugurated, Barack Obama is requesting a second term by promising, or perhaps threatening, that prosperity is just around the corner if he can practice four more years of trickle-down government.
This is dubious policy, scattering borrowed money in the hope that this will fill consumers and investors with confidence. But recently Obama revealed remarkable ambitions for it when speaking in Pueblo, Colo., a pleasant place Democratic presidents should avoid. After delivering in Pueblo what would be his last extended speech, Woodrow Wilson suffered a collapse that prefaced his disabling stroke. And in Pueblo this summer, Obama announced what should be a disqualifying aspiration.
After a delusional proclamation - General Motors "has come roaring back" - Obama said: "Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry." We have been warned.
Obama's supposed rescue of "the auto industry" - note the definite article, "the" - is a pedal on the political organ he pumps energetically in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere. Concerning which:
He intervened to succor one of two of the U.S. auto industries. One, located in the South and elsewhere, does not have a long history of subservience to the United Auto Workers and for that reason has not needed Obama's ministrations. He showered public money on two of three parts of the mostly Northern auto industry, the one long entangled with the UAW. He socialized the losses of GM and Chrysler. Ford was not a mendicant because it was not mismanaged.
Today, "I am GM, hear me roar" is again losing market share, and its stock, of which taxpayers own 26 percent, was trading Thursday morning at $21, below the $33 price our investor in chief paid for it and below the $53 price it would have to reach to enable taxpayers to recover the entire $49.5 billion bailout. Roaring GM's growth is in China. But let's not call that outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, lest we aggravate liberalism's current bewilderment, which is revealed in two words it dare not speak, and in a four-word phrase it will not stop speaking. The two words are both verbal flinches. One is "liberal," the other "spend." The phrase is "as we know it."
Jettisoning the label "liberal" was an act not just of self-preservation, considering the damage liberals had done to the word, but also of semantic candor: The noble liberal tradition was about liberty - from oppressive kings, established churches and aristocracies. For progressives, as liberals now call themselves, liberty has value, when it has value, only instrumentally - only to the extent that it serves progress, as they restlessly redefine this over time.
The substitution of "invest" for "spend" (e.g., "We must invest more in food stamps," and in this and that) is prudent but risky. People think there has been quite enough of (in Mitt Romney's words) "throwing more borrowed money at bad ideas." But should progressives call attention to their record as investors of other people's money (GM, Solyndra, etc.)?
In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton's campaign ran an ad that began: "For so long government has failed us, and one of its worst features has been welfare. I have a plan to end welfare as we know it." This was before progressives defined progress as preventing changes even to rickety, half-century-old programs: Republicans "would end Medicare as we know it."When did peculiarly named progressives decide they must hunker down in a defensive crouch to fend off an unfamiliar future? Hoover Dam ended the lower Colorado River as we knew it. Rockefeller Center ended midtown Manhattan as we knew it. Desegregation ended the South as we knew it. The Internet ended . . . you get the point. In their baleful resistance to any policy not "as we know it," progressives resemble a crotchety 19th-century vicar in a remote English village banging his cane on the floor to express irritation about rumors of a newfangled, noisy and smoky something called a railroad.
Given Democrats' current peevishness, it is fitting that Sandra Fluke will address their convention. In February she, you might not remember, became for progressives the victim du jour of America's insufficient progress. She was a 30-year-old-student - almost half way to 62, when elderly Americans can begin collecting Social Security - unhappy about being unable to get someone else (Georgetown University, a Catholic institution) to pay for her contraceptives.
Say this for Democrats: They recognize a symbol of their sensibility when they see one.
georgewill@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1066 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Every Edition
Week 986: Hear here! Week 986: Hear here!
BYLINE: Pat Myers
SECTION: STYLE; Pg. T20
LENGTH: 3542 words
"Our seedy pick of the week . . .""Moron Afghan refugees in a moment."" . . . rated by Rodent Track magazine . . ."
Invitational reader Bruce Ferguson gets a lot of his news and music from the radio, and while he's never had Invite ink, he clearly thinks in a Loserly way, as evidenced by the above phrases that he's heard on the air recently. This week: Give us a sentence or short dialogue that would be a lot funnier if a word in it were mistaken for a homophone of that word, as in Bruce's examples above.
Winner gets the Inkin' Memorial, the bobblehead that is the official Style Invitational trophy. Second place receives a Superfly Monkey, a stuffed animal that catapults from your fingertips when you pull back on its elastic arms and sails a remarkable distance while letting loose an annoying scream. This prize would have been a big hit when we gave it out for Week 826, except that its donor, Lois Douthitt, managed to win it back (this has happened to Invite prize-donors more than once; we don't use the term "Loser" for nothing). This time Phil Frankenfeld is the donor; let's see if he's luckier. See a video of Superfly in action at bit.ly/monkeyslingshot.
Other runners-up win their choice of a coveted Style Invitational Loser T-shirt, a yearned-for Loser Mug or the ardently desired Grossery Bag. Honorable mentions get a lusted-after Loser magnet. First Offenders get a smelly, tree-shaped air "freshener" (FirStink for their first ink). E-mail entries to losers@washpost.com or fax to 202-334-4312. Deadline is Monday, Sept. 10; results published Sept. 30 (online Sept. 27). No more than 25 entries per entrant per week. Include "Week 985" in your e-mail subject line or it might be ignored as spam. Include your real name, postal address and phone number with your entry. See contest rules and guidelines at wapo.st/inviterules. The subhead for this week's honorable mentions is by Tom Witte. Join the lively Style Invitational Devotees group on Facebook at on.fb.me/invdev.
Report from Week 982
our annual-or-so song parody contest; this time the restriction was that you had to include an actual line from the song you were parodying. Many, many more great parodies appear in the online Invite at bit.ly/inv986, on everything from same-sex marriage to Tim Tebow to Vincent Gray, plus videos of some of the songs, and YouTube links to all the songs so you can listen to the music while your read the parody lyrics.
The winner of the Inkin'Memorial
The Congressional Theme Song (to "I Won't Grow Up,"from "Peter Pan")We won't grow up!We don't wanna legislate.We are always out campaigningTill the next election date.We just cast votes for special perks;On all the rest, the filibuster works.We'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up - We're jerks!
We won't grow up!We will never compromise;To obstruct the other partyIs our one and only prize.We've pledged to veto every taxFor Grover Norquist and the super-PACs.We'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up -We're hacks! (Nan Reiner, Alexandria)
2Winner of the cute plush ulcer bacterium: (To "Another Brick in the Wall")
We don't need no education,Texas is a thought-free zone.No evolution in the classroom:Teachers leave them kids alone.Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!We'll stop y'all with another brick in the wall.Our kids will all be just another hick in the mall. (Dixon Wragg, Santa Rosa, Calif.)
3 Friday, Maybe: The Derecho Song(To "Call Me Maybe")I like electrical stuff, I never can get enough,Not having power is rough, can't stand the dark and heat.I like to turn on a light, have AC running at night,Make sure my fridge is all right so I won't lose my meat.
The rain was flowing, thunder sky was glowing,Hot night, wind was blowing,Not again, our power's going!Hey, I call Pepco, and then they say weWon't get back power till Friday, maybe. (Kathy Hardis Fraeman, Olney)
4 (To "Born to Run") In the day we work out on the streets, guaranteeing the American Dream.At night we glide through mansions of donors, basking in their esteem.Stung in the pages of the New York Times:We're well heeled, well connected, not deigning to explain old crimes.Ann, this task rips the stories from our past.Your horse and Seamus, they always wanna blame us.We've gotta hit Barack till we've won'Cause champs like us, baby, we were born to run.(Mike Gips, Bethesda)
Subpar-odies:honorable mentions
(To"Let It Snow")Oh, the weather outside is frightful,Summer's hot both day and nightful.Every winter leaves us aglow:There's no snow! There's no snow! There's no snow!
[Bridge:] But the scientists can't be right.Climate studies don't fool me, folks.Phony data's been brought to light.Global warming is just a hoax!
Soon the heat will show signs of stopping,Average temps will start to dropping.That's the truth 'cause a Fox News showTells me so, tells me so, tells me so. (Chris Doyle, Ponder, Tex.)
(To "The Hokey Pokey")You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out;You've trashed your brand-new shoes, and profanities you shout;A steaming pile of excrement has turned your plans around;Who let the Great Dane out? (Beverley Sharp, Montgomery, Ala.)
(To "White Rabbit")One pill makes you largerAnd two pills wow the galsAnd with the lift we'll give youYou'll be the envy of your pals.For Cialis, click this link now.(Mike Gips)
And last: The Empress's Invitation(To "Side by Side")Oh, we ain't got a barrel of money,Even for jokes that are funny,But we'll send you a shirt;Send us your dirt;Snide! Be snide! (Beverley Sharp)
Still running - deadline Tuesday night - is Week 985, our contest featuring the cartoons of Bob Staake. See bit.ly/invite985.
"Our seedy pick of the week . . .""Moron Afghan refugees in a moment."" . . . rated by Rodent Track magazine . . ."
Invitational reader Bruce Ferguson gets a lot of his news and music from the radio, and while he's never had Invite ink, he clearly thinks in a Loserly way, as evidenced by the above phrases that he's heard on the air recently. This week: Give us a sentence or short dialogue that would be a lot funnier if a word in it were mistaken for a homophone of that word, as in Bruce's examples above.
Winner gets the Inkin' Memorial, the bobblehead that is the official Style Invitational trophy. Second place receives a Superfly Monkey, a stuffed animal that catapults from your fingertips when you pull back on its elastic arms and sails a remarkable distance while letting loose an annoying scream. This prize would have been a big hit when we gave it out for Week 826, except that its donor, Lois Douthitt, managed to win it back (this has happened to Invite prize-donors more than once; we don't use the term "Loser" for nothing). This time Phil Frankenfeld is the donor; let's see if he's luckier. See a video of Superfly in action at bit.ly/monkeyslingshot.
Other runners-up win their choice of a coveted Style Invitational Loser T-shirt, a yearned-for Loser Mug or the ardently desired Grossery Bag. Honorable mentions get a lusted-after Loser magnet. First Offenders get a smelly, tree-shaped air "freshener" (FirStink for their first ink). E-mail entries to losers@washpost.com or fax to 202-334-4312. Deadline is Monday, Sept. 10; results published Sept. 30 (online Sept. 27). No more than 25 entries per entrant per week. Include "Week 985" in your e-mail subject line or it might be ignored as spam. Include your real name, postal address and phone number with your entry. See contest rules and guidelines at wapo.st/inviterules. The subhead for this week's honorable mentions is by Tom Witte; the alternative headline for the "next week's results" line was submitted by both Jeff Contompasis and Nan Reiner. Join the lively Style Invitational Devotees group on Facebook at on.fb.me/invdev.
Report from Week 982
Our annual-or-so song parody contest: This time the restriction was that you had to include an actual line from the song you were parodying. Click on the link in each song to hear the melody on YouTube; I've found that the best way to do this is to click on the link, start up the video at the specified point (one some of them, you have to wait five seconds so you can skip the rest of the commercial) and then go back to the parody lyrics while you hear the music - it's fun to sing along, too, although this is not recommended during certain religious services.
The winner of the Inkin' Memorial
The Congressional Theme Song (to "I Won't Grow Up," from "Peter Pan")We won't grow up!We don't wanna legislate.We are always out campaigningTill the next election date.We just cast votes for special perks;On all the rest, the filibuster works.We'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up - We're jerks!
We won't grow up!We will never compromise;To obstruct the other partyIs our one and only prize.We've pledged to veto every taxFor Grover Norquist and the super-PACs.We'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up -We're hacks! (Nan Reiner, Alexandria, Va.)
2.Winner of the cute plush ulcer bacterium: (To "Another Brick in the Wall")
We don't need no education,Texas is a thought-free zone.No evolution in the classroom:Teachers leave them kids alone.Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!We'll stop y'all with another brick in the wall.Our kids will all be just another hick in the mall. (Dixon Wragg, Santa Rosa, Calif.)
3.Friday, Maybe: The Derecho Song(To "Call Me Maybe")I like electrical stuff, I never can get enough,Not having power is rough, can't stand the dark and heat.I like to turn on a light, have AC running at night,Make sure my fridge is all right so I won't lose my meat.
The rain was flowing, thunder sky was glowing,Hot night, wind was blowing,Not again, our power's going!Hey, I call Pepco, and then they say weWon't get back power till Friday, maybe. (Kathy Hardis Fraeman, Olney, Md.)
4.(To "Born to Run") In the day we work out on the streets, guaranteeing the American Dream.At night we glide through mansions of donors, basking in their esteem.Stung in the pages of the New York Times:We're well heeled, well connected, not deigning to explain old crimes.Ann, this task rips the stories from our past.Your horse and Seamus, they always wanna blame us.We've gotta hit Barack till we've won'Cause champs like us, baby, we were born to run.(Mike Gips, Bethesda, Md.)
Subpar-odies: Honorable mentions
(To"Let It Snow")Oh, the weather outside is frightful,Summer's hot both day and nightful.Every winter leaves us aglow:There's no snow! There's no snow! There's no snow!
[Bridge:] But the scientists can't be right.Climate studies don't fool me, folks.Phony data's been brought to light.Global warming is just a hoax!
Soon the heat will show signs of stopping,Average temps will start to dropping.That's the truth 'cause a Fox News showTells me so, tells me so, tells me so. (Chris Doyle, Ponder, Tex.)
(To "The Hokey Pokey")You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out;You've trashed your brand-new shoes, and profanities you shout;A steaming pile of excrement has turned your plans around;Who let the Great Dane out? (Beverley Sharp, Montgomery, Ala.)
(To "White Rabbit")One pill makes you largerAnd two pills wow the galsAnd with the lift we'll give youYou'll be the envy of your pals.For Cialis, click this link now.(Mike Gips)
Aboard US Airways Express 3329 Into National(To "One" from "A Chorus Line")One - runway at the airport all the planes have got to use.Two - opposite directions air controllers can choose.Sometimes a change in the weather may flip your sights,But don't you think you should notify all the flights?One - moment till collision, time to kiss our butts goodbye.Choose a plane to turn and fly away - Hey,You! Try - accident prevention!Do I really have to mentionWe're the one!(Nan Reiner)
To "Castle on a Cloud" from "Les Misérables"(sung by the adorable waif Bruce Yanovitch, age 7) There is a castle on a cloud;Mom has to work there while I sleep.So many floors to scrub and sweep,Big, dirty castle on a cloud.
There is a man dressed really nice;I asked him one time for his advice.I'm just a kid, but I kid you not:He said, "You're poor. Get rich. You missed a spot."
I know a place where mom stays home.There is a lift in that garage.Dogs in the car are not allowed.Poo trickles down here from that cloud.(Amanda Yanovitch, Midlothian, Va.)
To "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" (start at 0:23) His bevy of homes can be quite satisfying;Oh, Money is Mitt Romney's friend.His large pleasure domes leave observers oh-mying,Also, crying "Oh, my stars!"At elevators for his cars.He should know, things come and go,And we all lose our charm in the end,But meanwhile his kitty has him sitting pretty;Money is Mitt Romney's friend.
A trip to New Hampshire is quite energizing;Money is Mitt Romney's friend.And his "summer camp" you would not find surprising;All creature comforts within reach,And many feet of private beach.He's your guy when stocks are high,But the man simply can't comprehendThat we are just plain folks; we're not like his Bain folks;Money is Mitt Romney's friend. (Mae Scanlan, Washington)
To "Oklahoma!"(start at 0:45)H. pylori,where you wind up weepin' from the painAnd the meals you eat can have no heatAs an ulcer makes your life insane!H. pylori, every night I feel I'm gonna die-- Chew a lot of chalk and call the doc,Hopin' he'll have somethin' else to try.Don't know how much more I can stand,And I stand to consume food that's bland.So when I cry, Yeeow! Ayipioee-aiiieee!I'm only cryin', Please, let me dine, H. pylori,H. pylori. H. py-! (Jeff Contompasis, Ashburn, Va.)
To "Master of the House" from "Les Miz" (start at 1:00) Master of the house, Keeper of the zoo:Speaker Boehner has an awful job to do. Dealing with the nuts. Holding down debate;Has to keep tea party crazies voting straight.All House members loathe each other,Eric Cantor wants his spot,Anger causes facial flushes. So to cover up he tans a lot.(Travis McKinney, San Antonio)
To "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from "Les Miz"
Do you hear the people sing?It's a relentless Broadway tuneThat you pay a hundred bucks to hearOn Sunday afternoon.When the thumping in your earsCauses your head to start to throb,That is the time to up and leave "Les Misérables." (Christopher Lamora, Guatemala City)
To "Love and Marriage" (start at 0:30) Same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage,An institution that we must disparage!Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathy is proud to say it's psychopathy.[Bridge] Try, try, try to celebrate it, it's an illusion.Try, try, try, and you will only come to this conclusion:Guy-guy marriage, gal-gal marriage,Same-sex weddings are a gross miscarriage.God has told us, brother, you can't have one spouse like the other. (Chris Doyle)
To "Blowin' in the Wind"How many roads must a man walk downBefore he can flag down a cab?How many squats must a fat man performBefore he can work off his flab?Yes, and how many weights must he lift up and downBefore he can strengthen an ab?The answer, my friend, is one more than he can,The answer is one more than he can.(Robert Schechter, Dix Hills, N.Y.)
"Fugue for Tinhorns"(from "Guys and Dolls")I got the horse right here,Her name's Rafalca, dear,It's your Olympic sport but I'll be nowhere near.Can't do, can't do. Can't be at Grand Prix with you.Won't watch on TV to seeHow well she'll do.The London games are nice,But Ann, I've good adviceBecause the press has burned me once or twice.Can't view, can't view dressage like the rich folk doAnd win the election too. Can't do. Who knew?(Chris Doyle)
To "That's Entertainment!"The clown with his pants falling downIn a trance while he dreamt of romance,Taken in to explain it's no sinAt his arraignment.The light's on Fred Willard tonightAs he's tried with his lawyer beside,Standing tall when he gives it his allAt his arraignment!(Jeff Contompasis)
To "Crying" by Roy OrbisonI mulled Jindal for the spice;There was Rice, she'd be nice;And you, Portman, were first,But the right wanted worst.So I stopped and said, "No, no"Oh, you wished me wellEn route to hellSince I'd picked Ry-y-y-an over you ...(Kevin Dopart, Washington)
To "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"
SuperPAChydermalCampaignFundingHocusPocus,Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious,Secret bundled megabucks can make a roar ferocious:SuperPAChydermalCampaignFundingHocusPocus.(Come-get-a-senator-there's-one-here-to-buy, come-get-a-senator-there's-one-here-to-buy!)
When I was just a lad in school I learned this truth by rote:The thing that makes this country great is called "one man, one vote."But Citizens United has changed everything we teach:"Look, boys and girls! A corporation can buy extra speech." Oh. . . (Nan Reiner)
To "Bennie and the Jets" Hey, Tim, what's the news this morning?They signed you as a backup, so you should have seen the warning.Did Jesus really want you coming over here?The media will watch your actions all throughout the year.
You say that you're happy, you've got no regrets;Ooh, but your team's spaced out, T-T-T-Timmy and the Jets.Oh, but they're weird and they're wonderful,They're any newspaper's dream.You throw just like my mom, but fans are calm,For you've brought God's approval on this team.Oh, Timmy and the Jets . . . (Matt Monitto, Elon, N.C.)
Biden's Lament(To "Oops! I Did It Again"; start at 0:51) Oops! I did it again!Idropped the F-bomband thrilled the newsmen.Obama's boiling -Oops! Told bunker's locale,No PR knowhow,I'm not intelligent! (Phyllis Reinhard, East Fallowfield, Pa.)
To "I'm Flying" from "Peter Pan"I'm flying!Over bars, over vault;Can I land without fault? I'm trying.I'm spinning!On the beam, on the floor;No one can touch my score. I'm winning!I just beat the best from everywhere,So give it a rest about my hair!I'm flying!Ponytail held with clips we all wear to do flips.I don't sport a weave - but somehow I achieve.When you can do the same, I might receive your catty peeve.I'm flying!(Nan Reiner)
To "Camelot"It's true! It's true! The GOP stands firm:For President Obama? Just one term. . . A law was made a distant moon ago here,But now it seems that there are almost noneSince "compromise" became a dirty word hereIn Washington . . .(Dave Hanlon, Woodbridge)
Rover's Serenade(To "L.O.V.E")
"R" is red, on Mars it's everywhere,"O" is OMG, we made it there!"V" is very, very extraordinary"E," I've got my eye on "R" that rockin' Mohawk Guy.Oh, Cur-iosity, three cheers to you!Sure shows what the U.S.A. can do.Works much better than weEver thought, and now we can seeUncle Martin'spoint of view. (Kathy Hardis Fraeman)
To the "Barney and Friends" themeI love you, you love me,Though we're not a "biblical family."And we'll celebrate our love in a non-biblical way,Making out at Chik-fil-A."(Mark Raffman, Reston)
To "Point of No Return"You know that once upon a timeI hoped to run for veep,And gave 10 years of tax returnsMcCain would read and weep.But now there's no getting meTo show the world the facts.I'm at the point of no returns,And you won't learn what I paid in tax.(Chris Doyle)
Prescriptions for Disaster(To"Manhattan")Nowadays, I take Viagra,'Cause it always causes aggra-vation when I flop again,And need to stop again . . . Constantly I have conniptions,Fretting over my prescriptions.I got four score; soon I'll get more.Here in Manhattan, I'm havin' statin overload.All over my abode they're stowed.So much ingestin' in my intestineCauses woe.Twelve times a day I go,When balmy breezes blow, to and fro.(chorus) I'm gonna keep taking every med,Till finally I am dead.Now where's the Prozac? It's just a vial of joy. (Stephen Gold, Glasgow, Scotland)
To "Seventy-Six Trombones"Seventy-six grams fat in the chocolate mousseAnd a hundred and ten more grams in the pie.It is easy to stuff, of course, quite enough to choke a horseIn the merest twinkling of an eye.
[bridge] They've a list of all the luscious things that we should eat:Turnip greens, fava beans, yogurt and tofu,Wilted kale and turkey tail and soup of beet;No red meat; it isn't good - for - you.So our conscience nags us constantly with healthy tips,Thundering, thundering, louder than before.We chomp a couple bacon strips, and feel them settle on our hips,And think, what the hell, let's have some more! (Mae Scanlan)
And last: The Empress's Invitation(To "Side by Side")Oh, we ain't got a barrel of money,Even for jokes that are funny,But we'll send you a shirt;Send us your dirt;Snide! Be snide! (Beverley Sharp)
Still running - deadline Tuesday night - is Week 985, our contest featuring the cartoons of Bob Staake. See bit.ly/invite985.
Visit the online discussion group The Style Conversational, in which the Empress discusses today's new contest and results along with news about the Loser Community - and you can vote for your favorite among the inking entries, since you no doubt figured the Empress chose the wrong winner. If you'd like an e-mail notification each week when the Invitational and Conversational are posted online, write to the Empress at losers@washpost.com (note that in the subject line) and she'll add you to the mailing list. And on Facebook, join the far more lively group Style Invitational Devotees and chime in.
Next week's results: Limerixicon IX, or, more succinctly, LimerIXicon, our annual contest for limericks focusing on words from one sliver of the alphabet (this time Eq-Ez).
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1067 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Suburban Edition
Eight Questions
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A26
LENGTH: 2047 words
1What is President Obama's most important objective?
Mitt Romney began his convention in Tampa last week with a long to-do list. President Obama's is shorter but no less daunting. This is not Denver 2008. There probably won't be any Greek columns when he speaks in the stadium Thursday night. The president's task, after almost four years in office, will be to persuade voters disappointed by what has happened that he knows how to make the next term better than the first.
There are some obvious objectives. He'll want to keep forcing the election to be a choice and not just a referendum on his record. He'll want his convention to draw sharp contrasts with Romney. But some Democrats say the Obama campaign has already done a good job of that during the summer. They believe that it's time for Obama to focus on the future.
Republicans see Obama in a tough spot. They argue that voters believe that Obama over-promised in 2008 and didn't deliver. As GOP strategist Chris Henick put it, Obama has "fatigued the bully pulpit" and needs to change that. Other Republicans say he has to answer the question posed by Paul Ryan, the GOP vice-presidential nominee, at the Tampa convention: Without a change in leadership, why will families be better off in the next four years?
Obama has accomplishments to point to: The auto bailout has helped turn around the auto industry. He's never sold his health-care program, but he can try to show how things will be better as that law continues to take effect. He made the decision to send a SEAL team to kill Osama bin Laden. But he also has to persuade voters that everything he did has helped set the foundation for a true recovery.
2How can Obama articulate a convincing defense of his economic record?
The defense will start by stating the obvious: that Obama inherited a terrible economic situation, so bad that a majority of Americans still blame the current state of the economy on former president George W. Bush. But at the Republican convention in Tampa, Bush's brother Jeb called out the president, challenging him to stop blaming his predecessor and start taking responsibility.
Obama will be defending a record that has kept unemployment above 8 percent for 42 consecutive months. Long-term unemployment is having a corrosive effect on the lives of many Americans. Although there are some bright spots - the housing sector has shown signs of life recently - voters aren't convinced that a real recovery has taken hold.
It's often been said that claiming things could have been worse is hardly an effective message, but Obama's team has often made that argument. Had Obama not done what he did, they say, the country could have plunged into a depression. But what hurts Obama now is the persistence of high unemployment and slow growth.
Explaining why is not going to be easy. Instead, a number of Democrats say, this is why Obama must draw a contrast with Romney. Tad Devine, a top adviser in the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry, suggested that Obama steal a line from Ronald Reagan and say as the Gipper did, "Our opponents began this campaign hoping that America has a poor memory. Well, let's take them on a little stroll down memory lane." Of course, Reagan was dealing with a recovery with far higher growth rates than those of today.
One top Democratic strategist said, "His most convincing defense of his economic record is contrast and comparison with the other side's proposals moving forward. If he is defending his record, he is not doing what he needs to do."
3Will Bill Clinton overshadow everyone else?
If you don't know the answer to this question, you don't know Bill Clinton. The former president will overshadow everything and everyone - at least for the brief time he is on stage in Charlotte. But he is savvy enough to know that he is there in a supporting role to help win Obama's reelection. He won't try to overshadow the president, but he'll take up plenty of space.
One measure of the potential impact of Clinton's speech is the fact that his successor, George W. Bush, wasn't ever on the stage in Tampa. Bush would be of no help to Romney. Clinton is revered by Democrats and still able to appeal to independents.
When Obama has asked him, Clinton has delivered a more effective defense of the president's record than virtually anyone else, including at times the president. They once were rivals, when Hillary Rodham Clinton was running for president, but they've found reasons to become allies. Clinton was accused of undermining Obama when he praised Romney's business record earlier this year, but there's no doubt that he will have Obama's back in Charlotte.
He embodies something Obama needs to get across to people, an economic success story of a Democratic president. Republicans argue that some of Clinton's chief accomplishments - welfare reform and a balanced budget - appealed to the middle of the electorate, while Obama's agenda has appealed only to his base.
Clinton's critique of the Republican agenda will be critical in helping persuade skeptical voters that Obama is still a better bet for the next four years than Romney. But overshadow the president? Obama is no slouch when it comes to big speeches. However Clinton performs, the big speech in Charlotte will still be Obama's on Thursday night.
4Will Vice President Biden lead the attacks on Mitt Romney?
It would be a surprise if he didn't attack, given the fact that vice presidents are generally assigned that role. But he won't be the only one. Given what the Obama campaign has been doing all summer, attacks likely will start with the opening night program Tuesday and carry through to Thursday night.
As one Democrat said, if the Democrats wait for Biden on Thursday to lead the attacks, they will have wasted the first two nights. Republicans Whit Ayres and Jon McHenry predict that every speaker, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, will attack Romney, "which is probably a mistake."
Biden obviously has another role and it's one reason he was picked to be on the ticket in 2008. He speaks to a constituency that long has been resistant to the president: white working-class voters. Biden speaks their language and will try again to be a validator for Obama with these voters.
The vice president, of course, can be an unguided missile, thought it's doubtful he'll be given the kind of freedom that the Romney campaign gave to Clint Eastwood in Tampa to ad lib his way through his assigned time. Biden can speak extemporaneously and at length about a lot of subjects, but the stakes are high enough - for Obama's reelection and Biden's political standing - that he'll likely see this as a time to choose his sharp words carefully.
5What is Michelle Obama's role at the convention?
The first lady was a big star in Denver four years ago and remains widely admired. Like Ann Romney, she can help remind people of Obama as a husband and father and warm up someone who can seem cool and distant.
"The president's role is to present a high-altitude vision for the country," said Democratic strategist Nathan Daschle. "Michelle Obama, on the other hand, can connect us on an emotional level to the president. Barack Obama is academic and a bit removed. This is a weakness as much as it's a strength. Michelle Obama is much warmer and can provide that level of emotional connection we don't get from the president."
Michelle Obama can help in other ways. With the Obama campaign trying to make the gender gap as big as possible, she can counter appeals to women at the Republican convention by some of the female speakers, though Ann Romney will be off limits.
The first lady can also play a big role in helping to energize the base. She is a keeper of the 2008 flame. Democrats suffer from a potential enthusiasm gap, which is just one of the ways in which 2012 is different from 2008. Whatever Michelle Obama can do to try to get Democrats once again fired up and ready to go will be a measure of the success of her speech.
6What is Obama's message for white working-class voters - or should he not worry about them?
Obama can't afford to ignore or take for granted any voters. "We can't write off any constituency, certainly not one that large," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "We won't win those voters, but there is a difference between losing by 20 points and losing by 40 points. The message is simple: Mitt Romney is a symbol of everything that's wrong with our economy."
Democrats have been losing white working-class voters for years, and they seem particularly resistant to Obama's appeals. He struggled with them in many of the industrial-state primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. He lost them in the general election, and he has been trailing significantly among these voters in polls all spring and summer.
But by winning big majorities of African Americans, Latinos, younger single women and very well-educated voters, Obama can afford to lose the white working-class vote. He just can't get wiped out with that constituency.
To prevent further erosion, the president needs to make his case that, whatever these voters may think of him, Romney would be worse. It's a classic class-warfare message wrapped in the rhetoric of moving forward as the one to rebuild the economy.
By attacking Romney all summer for his record at Bain Capital, the Obama campaign is trying turn the Republican nominee into the guy who fires people. But Obama needs to do more than just try to disqualify Romney. He'll be on the offensive, but will he have a credible message to struggling middle-class voters?
7Will attacks or positive messaging persuade undecided voters to support Obama?
Obama's campaign has been on the attack all summer - in its advertising, its messages of the day, its conference calls and its tweets - in an effort to disqualify Romney as an alternative. Republicans say that's because Obama can't defend his economic record and has nothing of note to be positive about.
Voters say they dislike negative ads but studies show that people process the information in those commercials quickly and often get valuable information from them. Voters dislike the worst of the ads they see, particularly those that are too personal. But contrast ads can do more to move voters than personal attacks or purely positive ads.
Still, undecided independent voters are turned off by the discord in Washington and the negative tone of politics generally. Obama has been effective in drawing contrasts with what Romney has advocated, but can't risk losing his advantage on likability. As one Democrat put it, "His largest asset four years ago was being thought of above politics and truly post-partisan. He needs to recapture some of that notion and leave the hard-hitting stuff to others."
8Who will be jockeying in Charlotte for attention for 2016?
Because this is Obama's last campaign, win or lose, one of the subthemes of the convention in Charlotte will be the speculation about who will lead the party four years from now.
In Tampa, there was considerable focus on the rising generation of Republicans who, if Romney loses, will be competing for their party's nomination in 2016. Republicans will have a large cast of younger leaders from which to choose.
Democrats have a different dynamic. The conversation in Charlotte will start with questions about two members of the administration: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Biden.
Clinton has said she will leave her post at the end of the year and has given no indication that she wants to run for president again. But she'll be under tremendous pressure to do so. Biden has wanted to be president since he first ran in 1988. Until he says he won't run, he, too, could block some younger Democrats.
If neither of them decides to run, then the list could be long: governors, senators, other members of the Cabinet, even Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio, if his keynote address lights up the arena the way Obama's did in Boston eight years ago.
"Charlotte will be one-stop shopping for the operatives, activists, donors and other core players that will help some of these potential candidates establish themselves and get traction in the invisible primary that begins on November 7th," Democratic strategist Michael Feldman said.
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1068 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Every Edition
'What America needs is jobs, lots of jobs'
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. G02
LENGTH: 1283 words
Mitt Romney accepted the Republican nomination for the presidency in Tampa. ¶ The candidate declared that "what America needs is jobs, lots of jobs." He has called for an extension of tax cuts due to expire at all income levels at year's end and has proposed an additional 20 percent cut in tax rates across the board. He has yet to sketch out the retrenchment in tax breaks that he promises to prevent deficits from rising. ¶ Top Republican contributors say they back Romney because they agree with his small-government philosophy or oppose President Obama's new regulations on banks and the health-care industry. ¶ Romney's campaign and Republicans have outraised Obama and Democrats for the past three months. ¶ In excess of $500 million has been spent on campaign TV commercials so far, almost all of it in the battleground states of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.
Business
Bank of America is lagging behind other banks in meeting its requirement to reduce customer mortgage balances under a $25 billion foreclosure settlement with the government, according to a report. More than 137,000 customers have received an average of nearly $77,000 in relief under the agreement.
Citigroup agreed to pay $590 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by investors alleging that the New York bank failed to disclose its exposure to toxic subprime mortgage debt.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Royal Dutch Shell would be allowed to start "certain limited preparatory activities" for oil drilling in the environmentally sensitive waters off Alaska's northwest coast.
A Japanese court dismissed Apple's patent infringement claim against Samsung, a significant legal bounceback for the South Korean tech giant as the rivals wage a global battle over intellectual property.
Best Buy founder Richard Schulze reached an agreement allowing him to conduct due diligence in his effort to acquire the company. Schulze can bring a fully financed, definitive proposal to the company within 60 days, and if that offer is rejected, he must wait until January to pursue an acquisition through other means, the company said.
A former Motorola software engineer was sentenced to four years in prison for stealing trade secrets from the company. Hanjuan Jin was accused of working simultaneously for Motorola, now known as Motorola Solutions, and for Kai Sun News (Beijing) Technology, also known as SunKaisens, which was affiliated with China's military.
Barclays named Antony Jenkins as its new chief executive, as shares in the crisis-hit group dropped following news of a new investigation into the bank's deals. Jenkins fills the post vacated by Bob Diamond in the wake of a scandal over attempts to manipulate a key interest rate index.
Amazon.com says it has sold out of its Kindle Fire tablet amid expectations of a new model for the holiday season.
Johnson & Johnson will pay $181 million to settle claims by 36 states that it improperly marketed he antipsychotic drugs Risperdal and Invega.
Lexmark is jettisoning its inkjet printers and laying off 1,700 workers as paper becomes increasingly passe in an age of ever-sleeker digital devices and online photo albums.
Science Applications International, based in McLean, said it plans to split into two public companies, taking a step to unwind a strategy that attempted to more tightly integrate its historically independent units. The decision comes months after SAIC appointed its fourth chief executive, retired Air Force Gen. John P. Jumper, with a mandate to reenergize the business.
General Motors will temporarily close the Detroit area plant that makes the Chevrolet Volt next month to control inventory and prepare to make a new model of the Chevrolet Impala.
Ford Motor Co. says its Focus is on track to be the best-selling car in the world this year, trumping the Toyota Corolla. In the first half of 2012, it sold almost 27,000 more than the perennial bestseller.
Deals
Hertz Global acquired competitor Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group for $2.3â[#x20ac][#x201a]billion. Hertz will be paying $87.50 per share of Dollar Thrifty stock.
New York Times Co. is selling its troubled online information service, About.com, to IAC/InterActiveCorp, the parent company of Ask.com, for $300 million in cash. That offer trumped a $270 million bid from Answers.com.
Deltek, based in Herndon, will be acquired by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo in a $1.1 billion deal that would turn the public company into a private firm. Deltek is best known for providing software to help government contractors and professional services firms manage their projects.
Economy
Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke said that the central bank plans to respond forcefully to the nation's sluggish recovery and gave a broad defense of the Fed's actions to date to keep the economy growing. In remarks in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Bernanke did not hint that new action was imminent, but in uncharacteristically direct language, he said the Fed intends to be "forceful . . . in supporting a sustainable recovery."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and expressed confidence that Italy's austerity drive will help push down its borrowing costs.
Spain's recession deepened amid the government's austerity push and a slump in consumer spending. As data suggest ongoing capital flight, the government announced more reforms and a bank bailout.
Finance ministers from the Group of Seven nations called on oil-producing countries to increase output, saying, "We remain vigilant of the risks to the global economy." Oil futures rose nearly 1â[#x20ac][#x201a]percent after the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement reported that 93 percent of crude production from the Gulf of Mexico has been shut by Hurricane Isaac.
Retailers including Target and Macy's reported August sales that rose 6 percent, trade group International Council of Shopping Centers said.
U.S. consumer confidence fell in August by the highest rate in 10 months as households grew more pessimistic about job prospects and the economic outlook.
U.S. student-loan debt rose 1.1 percent to $914 billion in the second quarter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported. Ninety-day delinquency rates for student loans increased to 8.9 percent from 8.7 percent in the first quarter.
The jobless rate in the Washington area held steady at 5.4 percent in July.
Washington
The Federal Aviation Administration is starting a process to study the use of iPads and other electronic devices on flights, with a timeline that means it will take at least until March 2013 for a recommendation.
The Government Printing Office has signed an agreement with Apple to sell some federal publications in e-book form for iPads and e-readers.
Transitions
Malcolm W. Browne - a Pulitzer-winning journalist whose photograph of a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire became an indelible image of the Vietnam War - died at 81.
Occupy Wall Street plans to mark its first anniversary next month by trying to encircle the New York Stock Exchange.
Warren Buffett is celebrating his 82nd birthday by giving each of his three children a big present: about $600 million worth of his company's stock for their charitable foundations.
- From The Post and news services
$8.5 billionin legal global arms trade
The value of the legal international trade in small arms, light weapons, and their parts and ammunition is more than double the estimate of $4â[#x20ac][#x201a]billion in 2006. The 2012 Small Arms Survey attributes the climb to large-scale government purchases, especially during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts; increased spending by U.S. civilians on foreign weapons and ammunition; and better data.
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1069 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 2, 2012 Sunday
Regional Edition
Peevish progressives
BYLINE: George F. Will
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A17
LENGTH: 777 words
With Americans, on average, worth less and earning less than when he was inaugurated, Barack Obama is requesting a second term by promising, or perhaps threatening, that prosperity is just around the corner if he can practice four more years of trickle-down government.
This is dubious policy, scattering borrowed money in the hope that this will fill consumers and investors with confidence. But recently Obama revealed remarkable ambitions for it when speaking in Pueblo, Colo., a pleasant place Democratic presidents should avoid.
After delivering in Pueblo what would be his last extended speech, Woodrow Wilson suffered a collapse that prefaced his disabling stroke. And in Pueblo this summer, Obama announced what should be a disqualifying aspiration.
After a delusional proclamation - General Motors "has come roaring back" - Obama said: "Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry." We have been warned.
Obama's supposed rescue of "the auto industry" - note the definite article, "the" - is a pedal on the political organ he pumps energetically in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere. Concerning which:
He intervened to succor one of two of the U.S. auto industries. One, located in the South and elsewhere, does not have a long history of subservience to the United Auto Workers and for that reason has not needed Obama's ministrations. He showered public money on two of three parts of the mostly Northern auto industry, the one long entangled with the UAW. He socialized the losses of GM and Chrysler. Ford was not a mendicant because it was not mismanaged.
Today, "I am GM, hear me roar" is again losing market share, and its stock, of which taxpayers own 26 percent, was trading Thursday morning at $21, below the $33 price our investor in chief paid for it and below the $53 price it would have to reach to enable taxpayers to recover the entire $49.5 billion bailout. Roaring GM's growth is in China.
But let's not call that outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, lest we aggravate liberalism's current bewilderment, which is revealed in two words it dare not speak, and in a four-word phrase it will not stop speaking. The two words are both verbal flinches. One is "liberal," the other "spend." The phrase is "as we know it."
Jettisoning the label "liberal" was an act not just of self-preservation, considering the damage liberals had done to the word, but also of semantic candor: The noble liberal tradition was about liberty - from oppressive kings, established churches and aristocracies. For progressives, as liberals now call themselves, liberty has value, when it has value, only instrumentally - only to the extent that it serves progress, as they restlessly redefine this over time.
The substitution of "invest" for "spend" (e.g., "We must invest more in food stamps," and in this and that) is prudent but risky. People think there has been quite enough of (in Mitt Romney's words) "throwing more borrowed money at bad ideas." But should progressives call attention to their record as investors of other people's money (GM, Solyndra, etc.)?
In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton's campaign ran an ad that began: "For so long government has failed us, and one of its worst features has been welfare. I have a plan to end welfare as we know it." This was before progressives defined progress as preventing changes even to rickety, half-century-old programs: Republicans "would end Medicare as we know it."
When did peculiarly named progressives decide they must hunker down in a defensive crouch to fend off an unfamiliar future? Hoover Dam ended the lower Colorado River as we knew it. Rockefeller Center ended midtown Manhattan as we knew it. Desegregation ended the South as we knew it. The Internet ended . . . you get the point. In their baleful resistance to any policy not "as we know it," progressives resemble a crotchety 19th-century vicar in a remote English village banging his cane on the floor to express irritation about rumors of a newfangled, noisy and smoky something called a railroad.
Given Democrats' current peevishness, it is fitting that Sandra Fluke will address their convention. In February she, you might not remember, became for progressives the victim du jour of America's insufficient progress. She was a 30-year-old-student - almost half way to 62, when elderly Americans can begin collecting Social Security - unhappy about being unable to get someone else (Georgetown University, a Catholic institution) to pay for her contraceptives.
Say this for Democrats: They recognize a symbol of their sensibility when they see one.
georgewill@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1070 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
September 1, 2012 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Fact-Checkers Howl, but Campaigns Seem Attached to Dishonest Ads
BYLINE: By MICHAEL COOPER; Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; POLITICAL MEMO; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 1113 words
In his very first television advertisement last year, Mitt Romney highlighted the nation's dire unemployment crisis, its record number of home foreclosures and the rising national debt, and showed video of President Obama delivering this arresting remark: ''If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.''
There was one problem: the quotation was taken so wildly out of context that it turned Mr. Obama's actual meaning upside-down. The truncated clip came from a speech Mr. Obama gave in 2008 talking about his opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. The full quotation? ''Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, 'If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.' ''
PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking Web site, rated the advertisement ''Pants on Fire,'' its most deceptive rating possible, but it achieved what the Romney campaign had hoped: people started talking about the sluggish economy and how Mr. Obama's campaign promises had fallen short. And it set the tone for the campaign that followed, which has often seemed dismissive of fact-checkers.
''We're not going let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,'' Neil Newhouse, the Romney campaign's pollster, said this week during a breakfast discussion at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., that was sponsored by ABC News and Yahoo News. He said that fact-checkers brought their own sets of thoughts and beliefs to their work, and that the campaign stands behind its ads.
Every four years there are lies in campaigns, and at times a blurry line between acceptable political argument and outright sophistry. But recent events -- from the misleading statements in convention speeches to television advertisements repeating widely debunked claims -- have raised new questions about whether the political culture still holds any penalty for falsehood.
Brooks Jackson, the director of FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said that at various points this year both sides have blithely gone on repeating statements that were found false.
''They don't care,'' he said, ''because it gets votes.'' The increasingly disaggregated media ecosystem, the diminished trust in traditional news organizations and the rise of social media had made it easier than ever to inject questionable assertions directly into the media bloodstream -- and to rebut them.
But while there is arguably more fact-checking now than ever -- and, thanks to the Web, more ways to independently check what candidates and campaigns say -- verdicts that a campaign has crossed the line are often drowned out by dissent from its supporters, who take it upon themselves to check the checkers.
Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College, said nonpartisan fact-checking groups now compete with ideologically motivated groups from both sides that consider their work to be checking facts as well. (The political campaigns also call some of their own news releases ''fact-checks.'')
''The term 'fact check' can easily be devalued, as people throw it onto any sort of an opinion that they have,'' Mr. Nyhan said. ''The other problem is that the partisans who pay attention to politics are being conditioned to disregard the fact-checkers when their own side gets criticized.''
The cycle was on display at the Republican convention when Mr. Romney's running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, made a number of questionable or misleading claims in his speech. Even before he stopped speaking, some of his claims were being questioned on Twitter. Soon fact-checkers were highlighting some of the misleading statements. More partisan sites rushed to Mr. Ryan's defense with posts finding fault with the first round of fact checks.
The truth-twisting has not been limited to Republicans. Democrats gleefully repeated an out-of-context quote that made it sound as if Mr. Romney enjoys firing people. An outside group supporting Mr. Obama ran an advertisement giving the unfair impression that Mr. Romney was responsible for the death of the wife of a steelworker who lost his job and his health insurance when Mr. Romney's old company, Bain Capital, closed down the plant where he worked.
And the Obama campaign ran a commercial falsely suggesting that Mr. Romney opposes abortion even in cases or rape or incest; he says he supports such exceptions.
But some independent commentators have argued that the Romney campaign appears to be more dishonest at this point in the campaign, citing the many times it has broadcast a commercial making the false claim that Mr. Obama wants to gut the work requirements of welfare.
Mark Halperin, the Time magazine writer, made the point this week on MSNBC, even as he noted that the Democrats had lost some of the high ground with their recent misleading attacks. ''But at this point I think the Romney campaign is besting them in making these distortions and untruths a bigger part of their message,'' he said.
Confidence in the old arbiters, the mainstream media, has fallen precipitously in recent decades: the percentage of Americans who trust newspapers, television and radio to report the news accurately and fairly fell to 43 percent in 2010, down from 72 percent in 1976, according to the Gallup Poll. Mr. Nyhan's research has shown the difficulties in trying to set the record straight through news accounts.
In a recent paper, called ''When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions,'' he and Jason Reifler, an assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University, found that corrective information in standard news articles -- compared with separate fact-check pieces -- was often ineffective at changing the minds of people predisposed to believe a misperception, and sometimes made the problem worse with what they termed a ''backfire effect.''
Bill Adair, the editor of PolitiFact.com, a project of The Tampa Bay Times, has seen his site come under fire from the left and the right in recent years, but said that this may prove to be the year of the fact-checker.
''I think there has always been a calculation by political campaigns to forge ahead with a falsehood if they think it will score the points they want to score,'' said Mr. Adair, who noted that campaigns still care enough about the truth to spend time explaining their positions and statements to his reporters. ''What's different this time is there is more fact-checking than ever.''
PHOTO: Fact-checkers said Representative Paul D. Ryan's speech at the Republican convention contained many questionable claims. (PHOTOGRAPH BY TODD HEISLER/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/us/politics/fact-checkers-howl-but-both-sides-cling-to-false-ads.html
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1071 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Opinionator)
September 1, 2012 Saturday
Between the Acts
BYLINE: DAVID BROOKS and GAIL COLLINS
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 1381 words
HIGHLIGHT: Gail Collins and David Brooks discuss the political conventions.
GAIL COLLINS David, we're halfway through the convention process. We've spent quite a bit of time conversing about it in different venues and now - print! I'm enjoying the conversing. It's just the conventions themselves I've come to hate.
DAVID BROOKS Are you kidding? These things should go on for weeks. Thursday night alone offered as much emotional volatility as a year of "Real Housewives." Here were these incredibly moving stories of how Mitt Romney ministered to the infant Kate Finlayson and to young David Oparowski as they were ill or dying.
I was up in the PBS studio trying all the tricks emotionally repressed guys use to try to hide the tears in their eyes - faking a sneezing fit, staring studiously at random points on the wall, trying to recall scenes from Marx Brothers movies.
For the life of me, I can't fathom why these stories of Romney's compassion haven't been in campaign ads all year. Why does the campaign hide its most effective testimonials? Are they that terrified of any mention of Mormonism?
GAIL Most of his many good deeds seem to have been done as a leader of his church, but I can't believe his party would think that was a bad thing. You're right that it was a high point. Too bad the entire viewing audience immediately forgot about it when Clint Eastwood started talking to an invisible president.
DAVID The Clint Eastwood appearance felt like the most nerve-racking three hours of my life. It was like a theme park ride: the Plunge of Terror. I now get flashbacks when I see an empty chair.
GAIL Yeah, it's not easy to upstage an entire convention, but Clint did it. However, I've heard that after he finally wandered off, Mitt Romney spoke. What did you think?
DAVID I'd say it was shockingly devoid of real policy proposals but revelatory about who he is and very effective. Romney was smart enough to stay within himself. It was heavy on the unironic Mayberry vibe, which is genuine. And he was compelling in the way he expressed his disappointment in Obama.
GAIL His challenge was to not look like an employer giving an upbeat prelude to the announcement that everybody was getting a 15 percent pay cut. Not sure he pulled it off.
DAVID The whole thing was like a Junior Achievement convention. It was all about small business, as if commercial activity is the only sphere of American life. But true to his faith, Romney is heavily committed to community. He spoke more about how to build social capital than all the Randians combined.
GAIL Speaking of Randians - I've been wanting to ask you about Paul Ryan. You've written about how Ryan made a terrible mistake torpedoing the Simpson-Bowles plan for deficit reduction. But in his speech he attacked President Obama for - failing to support Simpson-Bowles! That was, I believe, after he criticized the president for closing a Wisconsin auto plant that closed under George W. Bush.
DAVID It was weird. Part of the speech was compelling and sounded very much like Paul Ryan - the indictment of the stimulus package and Obamacare. Part of it sounded like it was written by people with the intellectual moorings of jellyfish.
The stuff about the G.M. plant was stupid on many levels. Ryan voted for the auto bailout; the plant in his hometown was closed pre-Obama; an elemental fact of capitalism is that sometimes corporations close plants and are right to do so. If you've got a guy famous for truth-telling, why feed him a bunch of semi-deceptions?
The Simpson-Bowles section was more of the same. I've interviewed Ryan many times and I've never heard him utter sentiments remotely like that. He doesn't believe in their approach because he doesn't believe it fixes the Medicare problem. Yet there he was in the biggest speech of his life pretending he thought it was God's gift to policy making. Paul, sometimes you just have to put your foot down and tell the campaign you won't do it.
GAIL So we had one major speaker talking to an empty chair while another denounced the president for not doing things the speaker doesn't believe in.
DAVID The larger issue is that both campaigns have decided that deceptiveness carries no penalty. I know from conversations I've had that both campaigns do rigorous fact-checking. When the candidates say something partially or wholly false, they know exactly what they're doing.
GAIL I did like the Republican Mormon Haitian-American woman who is running for Congress in Utah. Possibly the most effective Republican Mormon Haitian-American speaker I've ever heard.
DAVID I don't know how to evaluate the other speakers since they were compelled to check their brains at the door. My question is: Why was there no mention of that "You didn't build that" line Obama once uttered?
I did like your friend, Mia Love, especially when she described what America meant to her: "agency." Somebody's been a faithful attendee of the Objectivist Society meetings.
GAIL Before we move on to the Democrats, let's talk about conventions in general. I'm a big fan of in-person gatherings - one block party is better than six months of Facebook friending. But the delegates haven't had a real role in ages, except to wander in front of the cameras wearing funny hats. And I've been noticing a lack of engagement even on that critical point. Just walking around under a big Stetson is not a sign of commitment.
DAVID The hats were terrible this year. The balloon drop, however, was the best I've seen - steady, fluid, gradual, like a mountain stream. Was Ben Bernanke regulating it?
GAIL Perhaps things will improve this week, and the Democrats will arrive in North Carolina bedecked with six-tier depictions of the bailout of the auto industry on their heads.
DAVID You're too optimistic. A convention based on the theme "It Could Be Worse" is not going there.
GAIL I was sorry the hurricane gave the Republicans an excuse to toss out Donald Trump, who's become like Weird Uncle Ferd Who Lives in the Basement. If they're using him to raise money and rally the birthers, they should be forced to display him on TV, right alongside every single person of color running on the Republican line for any office higher than Board of Zoning Appeals.
DAVID I wonder if the Democrats are going to strain as hard to find white men. If you look at the polls you'll observe that white male Obama supporters are as rare as a Cinnabon on Michelle Obama's snack tray. Obama could end up below 40 percent among whites over all. I wonder if they'll pull in the cast of "Pawn Stars" to get the white working class vote.
GAIL A last thought about my convention obsession: they should be limited to one day. Ceremonial casting of ballots in the morning, speeches by bitter former presidential contenders and overly ambitious governors in the afternoon. Then each party should get two hours of prime time to introduce their ticket. Plus, if they want to keep the viewers from wandering off to the Alligator Wrestling Channel, a little decent entertainment. After Tampa, I know what happens to unsung country musicians. They wind up at the Republican convention, warming up the crowd for John McCain and Condoleezza Rice.
DAVID Geography is destiny. From now on, they should just hold the conventions in one of five cities: San Diego, Chicago, New Orleans (weather permitting), New York and Los Angeles. The other cities are just too generic. What downtown life they possess gets overwhelmed by the security rigmarole.
GAIL Lovely people in Tampa, but all I could think was: this is what would happen if you put the city of Des Moines in an asparagus steamer. But now we're going to Charlotte. Charlotte is nice.
DAVID I haven't spent a lot of time in downtown Charlotte, but I recall it mostly as a bunch of A.T.M.'s with parking. I'm actually curious to learn what President Obama plans to do if he's re-elected. I know he wants to weatherize a few more elementary schools, but is that it? If Tampa is about peering into Mitt Romney's heart, Charlotte will be about peering into Obama's policy larder. Is there anything there?
GAIL We shall see. At least the Democrats have a way longer list of movie stars to choose from, so I'm presuming they'll be able to find someone who will stick with the teleprompter.
Humanize This!
Romney the Unknowable
The Debate We Should Be Having
Caring About Politics
The Etch A Sketch Doctrine
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1072 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
September 1, 2012 Saturday
Why Campaign Reporters Are Behind the Curve
BYLINE: SASHA ISSENBERG
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 2147 words
HIGHLIGHT: Journalists are unable to keep up with the machinations of campaigns and the revolution in political information gathering.
It becomes popular around this time of year to lament the fact that media coverage treats the presidential campaign as little more than a "horse race." Journalists, this line of argument goes, choose to fixate on which candidate is a superior campaigner or savvier strategist, not on who has sounder ideas or is better prepared to govern. From time to time, the journalists themselves concede that to maintain daily or hourly tension in the contests they promote, they have little choice but to elevate minor poll shifts into major developments.
But the reality about horse-race journalism is far more embarrassing to the press and ought to be just as disappointing to the readers who consume our reporting. The truth is that we aren't even that good at covering the horse race. If the 2012 campaign has been any indication, journalists remain unable to keep up with the machinations of modern campaigns, and things are likely only to get worse.
"My view is that there's nothing that's secret in campaigns anymore - but that doesn't mean everything is understandable in a campaign," says Terry Nelson, who served as John McCain's campaign manager in 2008. "The ability of campaigns to run circles around journalists in some places is strong, and it's not healthy."
I covered the 2008 election for The Boston Globe, filing articles that I hoped would rise above the superficial and ephemeral poll-driven reporting that I had been trained to disdain. But after spending the last two years reporting on the scientific revolution that is quietly reshaping politics, I realized how much of the story my colleagues and I had missed.
Over the last decade, almost entirely out of view, campaigns have modernized their techniques in such a way that nearly every member of the political press now lacks the specialized expertise to interpret what's going on. Campaign professionals have developed a new conceptual framework for understanding what moves votes. It's as if restaurant critics remained oblivious to a generation's worth of new chefs' tools and techniques and persisted in describing every dish that came out of the kitchen as either "grilled" or "broiled."
"When I went to work for my first campaign, in 1994, I was actually surprised at how journalists tended to think one step ahead where campaigns are four steps ahead," says Joel Benenson, a former newspaper reporter who now serves as President Obama's chief pollster. "Think of it as a level-five player in chess and a level-eight player in chess. You had people covering campaigns who are at the mercy of the grandmasters of politics."
The gap between journalists' desire to cover the political game and our ability to do so has only widened since Mr. Benenson changed careers. Campaigns have borrowed techniques from the social sciences, including behavioral psychology and statistical modeling. They have access to private collections of data and from their analysis of it have been able to reach empirical, if tentative, conclusions about what works and what doesn't.
But we have done little to update our thinking. Until about 2000, we were able to keep pace with major innovations in the political world. When new tools were developed for measuring public opinion - whether it was tracking polls, focus groups or the so-called dial sessions that measured a voter's instantaneous response to a video - news organizations could replicate them. When taking stock of a race's dynamics, journalists reviewed many of the same types of research that sat on a campaign manager's desk.
In the years that followed, campaign analysts began to pull in reams of new data on individual voters. Politicians have always looked for ways to communicate differently with niche audiences on issues of narrow concern, but they had been stuck approaching them in terms of geographic zones or familiar demographic subgroups. Now campaigns had access to all sorts of new demographic and lifestyle markers, like lists of people who purchased religious material or had gun licenses or had recently taken a cruise.
Breathless, and often fact-free, stories about "data mining" and "microtargeting" soon became plentiful. But few journalists had access to any of the campaigns' data, or even much understanding of the statistical techniques they used. We found ourselves at the mercy of self-promoting consultants who described how they were changing politics by ignoring stodgy old demographics and instead pinpointing voters according to their lifestyles. We played along, guilelessly imputing new mythic powers to microtargeting. In many retellings, data analysis became the reason George W. Bush was re-elected.
Microtargeting was at once less directly influential, and more fundamentally disruptive, than these analyses suggested. The most colorful commercial variables that appeared prominently in journalistic accounts of microtargeting - whether someone drank gin or drove a Subaru - were never of much value on their own. It was the combination of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of data points that offered value: algorithms could weigh previously imperceptible relationships among variables to predict political attitudes and behavior.
Now, instead of defining voters by a handful of self-evident attributes like rural Hispanic Democratic men or non-college-educated white seniors, campaigns could group individual citizens according to segments or scores that reflected gradations of predicted habits - of how likely they were to turn out to vote or to support a specific candidate. They could be aggregated into what campaigns call a universe - targets for the same persuasive media or get-out-the-vote drive - not by visible demographic commonalities but because they were projected to behave in similar ways.
Five days after Mitt Romney selected Paul D. Ryan as his running mate, Mr. Obama's campaign released a public memo by Mr. Benenson with the title "Romney's Choice of Ryan Falls Flat." In it, Mr. Benenson reviewed survey data from pollsters like Gallup and Rasmussen to argue that Mr. Romney had not realized the same post-running-mate bounce as previous nominees had. The media duly covered the memo as news, under headlines like "Obama Pollster Says (With Data) Ryan Pick a Dud."
In his Aug. 16 memo, Mr. Benenson wrote that "Ryan has had virtually no impact on Romney's position." That may have been a fair conclusion to draw from the public horse-race polls available then. But the publicly available data Mr. Benenson cited relied on an entirely different sampling methodology than the ones based on microtargeting scores that Mr. Obama's polling operation actually uses to guide campaign strategy. Because their proprietary data was more varied and nuanced than Gallup's, Mr. Obama's advisers also knew then that it was too soon to assess Mr. Ryan's impact. His selection could still cause dramatic changes to the contours of the contest without an obvious disruption to Mr. Romney's standing in the horse race.
Indeed, the telling numbers wouldn't be polls but the individual probability scores that Mr. Obama's targeters developed (and update weekly) to predict how likely each voter in the country is to support him. As the scores adjusted to reflect post-selection opinion, there was the prospect that they could show a tranche of Romney backers (likely older whites) incrementally weakening in their support for the Republican ticket. Obama tacticians would relish the news: it would signal the emergence of a new persuasion universe where the president could play offense and force Mr. Romney to defend against defections.
Contrary to what Mr. Benenson's public memo suggested, the Obama campaign wasn't merely concerned with those who had already moved because of the Ryan pick. Chicago was already one step ahead, tracking those who may have just become susceptible to future movement. Once the campaign had identified those voters, it could start communicating with them, either through individually targeted contact like mail, phone calls and Web ads or niche media, which often elude the attention of the national political press.
"All journalists have one channel and all campaigns have one hundred, between Internet, TV, e-mail," says Samuel Popkin, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, who has been a strategist for four Democratic presidential candidates. "They're out there thinking, 'What should we put in the goldbug newsletter or the Hadassah weekly?' and the reporters are all thinking about what you're putting in their paper."
Journalists tend to mistake the part of the campaign that is exposed to their view - the candidate's travel and speeches, television ads, public pronouncements of spokesmen and surrogates - for the entirety of the enterprise. They treat elections almost exclusively as an epic strategic battle to win hearts and minds whose primary tools are image-making and storytelling.
But particularly in a polarized race like this one, where fewer than one-tenth of voters are moving between candidates, the most advanced thinking inside a campaign is just as likely to focus on fine-tuning statistical models to refine vote counts and improve techniques for efficiently identifying and mobilizing existing supporters.
"There's a lot that goes on in a campaign that reporters never really get at," says Mr. Benenson. "There are a lot more things at play."
Failing to appreciate those nitty-gritty tactics can mean missing the bigger strategic story altogether. The most examined inside-baseball campaign topic of 2011 concerned whether Mr. Romney would cede the Iowa caucuses to his rivals. If he threw himself into Iowa and lost, the thinking went, he would reveal weaknesses in a front-runner's candidacy, like limitations that his faith or record placed on his reach among conservatives.
For nearly the entire year, all signs pointed to the notion that Mr. Romney was holding back for fear of experiencing a repeat of his embarrassing loss four years earlier. The candidate rarely visited the state, lacked a Des Moines headquarters, skipped the Ames straw poll and did not air a single advertisement.
Within Mr. Romney's campaign, however, his options were never seen as the binary choice presented by the "Will Mitt make a play for Iowa?" media parlor game. While journalists waited for physical manifestations of a Romney "ground game" to materialize, Mr. Romney deployed statistical models to track Iowa supporters and current vote counts for his rivals. It amounted to a largely invisible 21st-century upgrade to the traditional infrastructure of offices, phone banks and staff that most journalists visualized when they tossed around the term "organization." Only six weeks before the caucus did Mr. Romney unveil the trappings of a traditional caucus campaign.
On election night, when Mr. Romney was declared the caucus winner, the press treated it as validation of his ability to compete on turf dominated by party activists. But Mr. Romney had not significantly expanded his support in four years. While maintaining a fiction to guard him in case of an Iowa loss, his aides had been diligently counting votes until they had the confidence to know that external dynamics had transformed a losing coalition in 2008 into a winning one. (Mr. Romney's victory was actually later reversed into a 34-vote loss to Rick Santorum.)
Mr. Romney had exploited the inefficiency at the core of contemporary campaign coverage: the press's fascination with strategic calculations and gamesmanship well exceeds its ability to decode the tactics underneath. We may be covering the horse race with more bytes and airtime than ever before, but we're looking at the wrong part of the track and don't know how many legs are on a thoroughbred.
This failure to properly cover the contest should disappoint more than those who want to follow the presidential race as fans, relishing it as competition. The campaign horse race may be our great quadrennial national sport, but how candidates win matters. The coalitions they build, their reliance on party structures and activist networks, the places they choose to spend money and how they allocate their time and other resources all help illuminate the decisions that they will make after taking office. To understand how they will govern, we need to understand how they run.
The smartest people I talk to in political campaigns - the ones who spend the most time in the company of advanced data and sophisticated experimentation - are also the quickest to concede how little we ultimately know about what it takes to win. For them, empiricism breeds uncertainty. Only by knowing what is measurable can we appreciate how much isn't, and be honest with readers about the fact that everything else may have to remain a mystery.
The Case for Noblesse Oblige
The Antisocial Contract
The Other Running Mates
A Détente Before the Election
Meet the Undecided
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1073 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
September 1, 2012 Saturday
In a Post-Convention Bump, Romney Draws Huge Crowds in Cincinnati
BYLINE: JEREMY W. PETERS
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 661 words
HIGHLIGHT: In Cincinnati, a crowd of thousands cheered Mitt Romney at a rally on Saturday during the start of a cross-country campaign swing.
CINCINNATI - A crowd of thousands cheered Mitt Romney at a rally here during the opening leg of a cross-country campaign swing on Saturday, testing for the first time whether he can sustain political momentum coming out of the Republican National Convention.
A line of people that stretched for five city blocks awaited Mr. Romney as his motorcade pulled into the Union Terminal. Inside there were so many people that the campaign had to redirect a few hundred of them into a small overflow room, where they crammed in shoulder to shoulder.
Mr. Romney has often failed to spark much of a connection with his audiences, and enthusiasm for him along the campaign trail has often been in short supply.
But inside a soaring Art Deco-styled rotunda here, the candidate, joined by Senator Rob Portman and Representative John Boehner, the House speaker, delivered a vigorous and sharply focused speech that sent the audience into ear-splitting roars.
Mr. Romney added new punch lines to his denunciation of President Obama's first term as a betrayal of the promises he made and a failure to lead.
"One of the promises he made was he was going to create more jobs. And today, 23 million people are out of work or stopped looking for work or underemployed," Mr Romney said. "Let me tell you, if you have a coach that's 0 and 23 million, you say it's time to get a new coach. It's time for America to see a winning season again, and we're going to bring it to them."
In the last few weeks, Mr. Romney has relied on his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, to infuse energy into his campaign rallies. But Mr. Ryan was in Columbus, north of here, campaigning at one of the state's high holidays, the season opening football game at Ohio State, playing Miami University of Ohio, which is Mr. Ryan's alma mater.
The two men are scheduled to appear together later in the day at a second rally on the waterfront in Jacksonville, Fla.
The setting for Mr. Romney's speech here has a history of providing the backdrop for major political events. On Oct. 7, 2002, George W. Bush delivered a televised address from Union Terminal to make his case for the Iraq War.
Though Mr. Romney devoted much of his remarks to crowd-pleasing put-downs of the president, he confronted head on a subject that he has been more reluctant to wade into: chastising Republicans for running up the deficit when they controlled Washington.
The more popular and convenient story line for many Republicans has often been to lay the blame for record deficits squarely at the feet of the Obama administration.
"We're going to finally have to do something that Republicans have spoken about for a long time, and for a while we didn't do it," he said. "When we had the lead we let people down."
The speech hit some of the same notes that Mr. Romney made in Tampa, Fla., where he accepted his party's nomination on Thursday night. He accused the president of putting teachers' unions, not students, first. He said that the president would raise taxes on small business. And he pledged to repeal the president's health care overhaul, which he called a "big cloud" raining over small businesses.
That line drew the most thunderous response from the crowd, which erupted into a half-minute of chants of "Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!"
Compared to the energy level inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum last week, which often seemed muted as many seats went unfilled and spectators milled about in the aisles checking their smart phones during speeches, the rally on Saturday morning was a noticeable improvement.
"America's going to come roaring back," Mr. Romney said as he concluded. "We're going to get America strong again, for you, for your children, for the future."
The speech, complete with sports metaphors and the "roaring back" line, recalled the message of a Super Bowl commercial for Chrysler called "Halftime in America." The ad's star? A speaker who made a controversial appearance at the convention: Clint Eastwood.
LOAD-DATE: September 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1074 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 1, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
After the party is over . . .
BYLINE: Colbert I. King
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A19
LENGTH: 844 words
Tennessee Gov. Frank G. Clement delivered a rousing keynote address at the 1956 Democratic convention in Chicago that electrified the delegates and mesmerized a national television audience, including this revved-up 17-year-old. Weeks later, the party's nominee, Adlai Stevenson, lost in a landslide, for a second time, to Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 "A Time for Choosing" speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater's- candidacy was a powerful call to arms that did little to help the Arizona senator; he was crushed at the polls by President Lyndon Johnson.
And who can forget Mario Cuomo's sensational keynote address at the 1984 Democratic convention in July - and how little good it did Democratic standard-bearer Walter Mondale in November?
Conventions can be memorable events. They've been known to energize the party faithful. They can convert never-heard-ofs (say, Barack Obama) into celebrities.
Modern-day political conventions produce a steady stream of infomercials during prime time, all without paying for the coverage.
Conventions also have their pitfalls.
These quadrennial affairs have, on occasion, slipped off-message, producing sometimes-unanticipated adverse events. The violent clashes between police and protesters at the 1968 Democratic convention nearly overshadowed the political roughhousing on the convention floor.
Word of this week's incident in Tampa in which two Republican guests reportedly threw peanuts at a black CNN camerawoman, saying, "This is how we feed animals," is spreading like wildfire among African Americans and other minorities, obliterating the diversity message Republicans delivered on stage. Then there was Paul Ryan's acceptance speech, most striking in the brazenness of its falsehoods. The address revealed a Republican vice presidential candidate without a sense of shame. To stand before a national audience and speak what he must have known was not the truth requires a hardiness of heart that is beyond the capacity and understanding of most honest people. Ryan pleased the party loyalists, but his cavalier treatment of the truth was chilling. This man a heartbeat from the presidency? Good Lord.
But conventions don't determine election outcomes.
That is true for the just-concluded GOP conclave and the Democratic convention next week.
The speech of New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie, as with the address San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro is scheduled to deliver, will fade with Labor Day memories. So will images of Republican and Democratic conventioneers with their funny hats, goofy lapel pins and faces contorted with anger or cheering.
What follows the conventions is different. All the Hollywood producers and entertainment executives in the world can't dress up what is about to take place over the next two months.
The political ads will portray the presidential election as a no-holds-barred duel between the forces of good and the wily devil. Attack ads in this most expensive presidential campaign in U.S. history will continue to lie, distort and hit below the belt. But this year brings added wrinkles.
Republican attempts to suppress black and Hispanic voters are startling in 21st-century America.
There was Texas's requirement that voters show photo identification and purchase such ID if they don't have it - a burden that would fall more heavily on the poor, many of whom are brown and black. Thankfully, a U.S. appeals court panel in Washington blocked the Texas law on Thursday. But suppression of nonwhite voters continues in Pennsylvania and Florida. That notwithstanding, this year's election will come down to what presidential elections are always about: one-on-one contests.
The real business at hand is to decide whether the nation should remain under the stewardship of President Obama or be handed to Mitt Romney.
The economy, debt, jobs and foreign policy will be familiar campaign fare, with much to be heard from commercials and surrogates.
But the real test is of the two individuals on the ballot. That is where questions of intelligence, character, integrity and trustworthiness come in.
This is the time for America to take the measure of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
My take: The McCarthyite patriotism issue, slyly insinuated against Obama for the past four years, is pure bunk. So, too, are suggestions that he is irresolute. Talk about having been dealt a bad hand: Obama faced a congressional Republican opposition determined to undermine his presidency from Day One.
Four years on, Obama is the most experienced, best-grounded, most honest and decent leader to take the country through the challenges that face us.
On the other hand, years of Romney watching reveal him to be a first-class poseur. His famous flip-flops, dodges and especially the pandering on display Thursday night show that he will pretend to be and say whatever he thinks is necessary to get elected. Conventions mask none of that.
kingc@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1075 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 1, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
Eastwood shoots from hip and gets blowback
BYLINE: Amy Argetsinger;Philip Rucker
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1167 words
Moments before Clint Eastwood approached the lectern at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night, he asked a stagehand to get him a chair.
Everyone just assumed he was going to sit in it.
Fans that night may have expected to hear from "Dirty Harry": the cool, controlled enforcer, as deft with a quip as with a gun, effortlessly and eternally hip. Instead, they got something closer to Walt Kowalski, the grizzled old cuss of Eastwood's 2008 "Gran Torino": raw, unpolished, a little angry and suddenly much older than you realized. Senior campaign aides said Friday that the unscripted routine by the actor-director - easily the biggest show-biz heavyweight to stand up for a GOP candidate since Frank Sinatra did it for Ronald Reagan - was something of a surprise.
The Oscar winner, 82, spoke off the cuff, having discussed a few talking points with campaign advisers and sketched out some rough remarks but preparing nothing for the prompters. Organizers were comfortable with this setup: At the early August fundraiser in Idaho where Eastwood first came out publicly for Mitt Romney, he delivered suave impromptu remarks that had other guests raving. Instead, Eastwood's wacky conversation with the empty chair (standing in for President Obama - and viewed by about 33 million people, according to Nielsen) became an instant Internet meme. His rambling style triggered snark about his health and his age. His old-timey lawyer jokes brought on a wave of triumphant fact-checking/rebuttal (Romney, like Obama, has a JD).
Inside the Tampa convention hall, the crowd roared with delight at Eastwood's humor. But as Thursday night turned into Friday, Twitter and talking heads piled on the mockery, some claiming Eastwood had managed to upstage and undercut the Republican nominee's acceptance speech. Ann Romney coolly deemed the actor's performance "unique" Friday on "CBS This Morning."
"I didn't know it was coming," she said with a nervous laugh.
Don't look for Eastwood on the campaign trail this fall. His longtime manager said Friday that the star was traveling back from Florida and unavailable for interview requests or comments - and that he will not speak to the press at all until he hits the promotional circuit for his next movie, "Trouble With the Curve," opening Sept. 21. When Eastwood gives his next interviews, manager Leonard Hirshan said,"he's speaking about the picture, not everything else."
On Friday, the Romney campaign expressed gratitude for the support of a beloved screen icon - no matter how quirky his delivery.
"He went out and did what actors do sometimes: He did a little improv," said Stuart Stevens, Romney's chief strategist.
Convention producers warily eyed the clock as Eastwood ran over his allotted five minutes by six or seven minutes. And the empty-chair gimmick was a complete surprise.
"This was an idea, a moment that moved him, I would say, and he went with it," Stevens said.
He said Romney, standing backstage, laughed appreciatively through Eastwood's talk. And Stevens praised Eastwood for hitting key talking points: "For him to go out there and to say that there's a need to change presidents and that he supports Mitt Romney and talk about 23 million people out of work as he did and talk about when someone doesn't do their job you need to change, that's a powerful message."
Questioned by a reporter from an NBC affiliate in Hampton Roads, Va., Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, said, "I think Clint Eastwood was just being Clint Eastwood."
A rumored Eastwood appearance had been the buzz of the convention from Day 1, after several decades of the Hollywood establishment closing ranks behind Democrats. Entertainers have been especially helpful to the Obama administration, with A-listers such as George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker mounting mega-dollar fundraisers for his reelection. "I know what you're thinking, you're thinking: 'What's a movie tradesman doing out here? They're all left-wingers out there!' " Eastwood told the convention hall audience Thursday. But there are indeed "conservative people, moderate people" in Hollywood, he said. They just "play it closer to the vest."
Despite dabbling in politics for years - most notably as the nonpartisan mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., from 1986 to 1988 - Eastwood's evolving and hard-to-pin-down views have added to his superstar mystique. An occasional Republican voter who allies with many socially liberal causes, he has long resembled a screenwriter's fantasy of the perfect square-jawed candidate, which may be why many fans project their beliefs onto him. His evocative but cryptic Chrysler ad that aired during this year's Super Bowl was interpreted by many pundits as a celebration of the Obama auto-industry bailout - although Eastwood, in fact, opposed it.
In an interview with The Washington Post's Ann Hornaday in November, Eastwood happily talked politics but made no pretense of being a wonk. Many Hollywood types dabbling in advocacy love to show off their mastery of policy, but Eastwood ("I've never been a really astute political person") uttered the simple hopes and gripes of your typical man-on-the-street interview.
"They all come up now and they all say the same thing," he said of politicians, Republican and Democratic alike. "They tell you what they want to get in, and when they get in, they all do something different, so you get the futility aspect of it all."
Although he endorsed Republican John McCain in 2008, Eastwood said he felt good about Obama's election, at first. "I thought: 'Well, that's cool. . . . That'll be nice for the country and maybe it'll settle down a lot of racial issues.' " Instead, "it kind of went the other way," he told Hornaday, citing his frustration with how Obama seemed to pick sides in the hot-button dispute when African American scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested by a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass. "Just a bad way to jump into it," Eastwood said.
Romney didn't seem to be on Eastwood's agenda last fall. ("I liked that fellow from New Jersey, [Gov. Chris] Christie," he told Hornaday.) It was just over a month ago that he approached the former Massachusetts governor's campaign to express his support, and he got invited to a pair of Sun Valley, Idaho, events on Aug. 3.
"He didn't act like a Hollywood star," one guest said. The fundraiser, who was granted anonymity in order to speak candidly, noted that Eastwood had no entourage and made no demands. He posed for pictures with police officers and Secret Service agents and sat at a table eating dinner and conversing with other supporters.
"He really wowed both audiences in Sun Valley and could not have been more gracious to the attendees and to Mitt Romney and to the staff," the fundraiser said.
As for the speech Thursday night, the fundraiser said, "I think the nature of Clint Eastwood is he is unpredictable."
argetsinger@washpost.com
ruckerp@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1076 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 1, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
Truth be told? That's no way to speak at a convention
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 1129 words
For all the outrage (on the left) about misrepresenta-tions and mis-information in Rep. Paul Ryan's speech accepting the Republican nomination for vice president, my reaction was: par for the course.
We are, of course, talking about a political convention. The whole point is for the party to put its best foot forward to the American people. By its very nature, that means downplaying unpleasant facts, highlighting the positive and knocking down the opposing team.
In fact, until Ryan showed up in the traditional role of a vice president attack dog, my impression was that, given the nasty, brutish attacks by both sides in this campaign, the Republicans were generally on good behavior.
The first night was a bit odd, since it was devoted to the political exploitation of a single Obama gaffe - "You didn't build that" - the Republicans blatantly misrepresent. The theme was so overdone, with virtually every speaker making reference to it, that it may have actually diluted the impact of the attack.
Ryan was so quickly labeled a fibber by the Obama campaign that one suspects it was a deliberate effort to tear down his reputation as a policy expert, similar to using attacks on Mitt Romney's Bain Capital record to undermine his reputation as a skilled business executive.
But worst convention speech ever? Please.
The gold standard for convention speeches filled with misrepresentations remains the speech of then-Sen. Zell Miller (R-Ga.) at the 2004 GOP convention attacking Democratic nominee John Kerry. Miller, who as a Democrat delivered the keynote address at the 1992 convention that nominated Bill Clinton, delivered a slashing attack that was breathtaking in its dishonesty.
Miller accused Kerry of voting against a vast array of weapons systems, making it appear as if Kerry had repeatedly voted to kill urgently needed tools for the military - when in reality the charge was based on a single vote nearly 15 years earlier. More important, these were weapons that then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney (and the vice president in 2004) had urged Congress to kill. Miller also suggested that a quote Kerry had given to the Harvard Crimson 35 years earlier, when he had just returned from serving in the Vietnam War, represented his current policy toward the United Nations.
Now, that's a speech for a fact checker! The Washington Post did not have the Fact Checker column then, but it ran _blanka front-page article detailing how he misled viewers with his language. Four years ago, our colleagues at FactCheck.org catalogued a series of errors and misstatements by _blankJohn McCain, _blankBarack Obama and _blankSarah Palin in their speeches. (Joe Biden got a pass.) All of them airbrushed their pasts or mischaracterized their opponents.
Palin, for instance, gave a self-serving account of her support for the "Bridge to Nowhere"- claiming she said "thanks but no thanks"- when in fact she had supported it until it was largely killed by Congress. This is a bigger failure to tell the whole story than Ryan criticizing Obama for doing nothing with the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction recommendation, without noting that he himself voted against the commission report .
Obama, meanwhile, knocked McCain for voting 90 percent of the time with his own party; he did not mention that he himself voted 97 percent of the time with Democrats. Obama and McCain also mischaracterized each other's proposals, using sometimes slippery facts.
For all the tough ads on television, this cycle's GOP convention was largely a kinder, gentler affair. In his acceptance speech, Romney toned down his rhetoric. He repeated some claims that have earned him Four Pinocchios (such as Obama going on an _blank"apology tour" overseas), but he passed up many others, such as reprising an attack on an Obama administration change in welfare rules that his campaign claims is his most effective ad.
Contrast Romney's approach with Bob Dole's in 1996, when Dole also faced a young Democrat (Bill Clinton) who had overreached in his first two years and lost control of Congress. _blankDole's speech was remarkably tough and uncompromising - and it still reads that way 16 years later. "It is demeaning to the nation that within the Clinton administration a corps of the elite who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned, should have the power to fund with your earnings their dubious and self-serving schemes," Dole thundered. "Somewhere, a grandmother couldn't afford to call her granddaughter, or a child went without a book, or a family couldn't afford that first home, because there was just not enough money to make that call, buy the book or pay the mortgage or, for that matter, to do many other things that one has the right and often the obligation to do. Why? Because some genius in the Clinton administration took the money to fund yet another theory, yet another program and yet another bureaucracy."
Dole mocked then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton for her best-selling book, "It Takes a Village," and even attacked the Clintons for where they sent their daughter to school. And he had this to say to teachers unions: "If education were a war, you would be losing it. If it were a business, you would be driving it into bankruptcy. If it were a patient, it would be dying. And to the teachers unions I say, when I am president, I will disregard your political power, for the sake of the parents, the children, the schools and the nation."
Romney's speech had none of that angry, dismissive tone. In fact, his speech in many ways was a carbon copy of _blankthe acceptance speech by the last Massachusetts politician nominated to run for president - John Kerry. Both began with an earnest effort to tell a gauzy version of their life story. Both, more in sorrow than in anger, recounted the failings of the incumbent president. And both sketched their policy prescriptions with rosy assumptions. They even both had a five-part plan to improve the economy.
Ultimately, convention speeches are about making the argument for your team. We should fully expect politicians to make their case using facts and figures that either tilt positive about their accomplishment - or negative about their opponents. As the fact-checking business has blossomed in the news media, it has been increasingly hard for politicians to get away with such truth-shading without someone noticing.
Both political parties will stretch the truth if they believe it will advance their political interests. It's been a rough campaign so far, but the GOP convention that just ended was strictly in the mainstream for such party celebrations.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read more FactChecker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1077 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
September 1, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
H OW THE CANDID A TE WHO WINS THIS H O USE C OULD AFFECT Y OUR H O USE
BYLINE: Katherine Reynolds Lewis
SECTION: ; Pg. E01
LENGTH: 2224 words
Four years after the housing bubble burst, there's much unfinished business regarding the restoration of the nation's real-estate market for the next president to tackle, experts across the political spectrum say.
Whether you prefer President Obama or Republican nominee Mitt Romney, there's no denying that the next president's economic and employment policies will be a key driver of the health of real estate for the next four years, not to mention the price of a mortgage. His policies will influence whether you can afford to buy a house or the amount of profit or loss you can expect from selling your house.
"The next president, whoever it turns out to be, is going to have a couple of big housing issues to address," said Barry Zigas, director of housing policy at the Consumer Federation of America. For starters, "what is the government's role in housing finance and will consumers have access to mortgages at affordable rates?"
On the campaign trail, Obama and Romney have hinted at the next steps they'd take, though neither campaign has outlined a comprehensive proposal for recovery of the housing market and private mortgage lending.
Obama would build on his programs already underway for foreclosure relief, expanded refinancing and loan modifications, while continuing to implement new housing finance rules and consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act. He also supports proposed legislation that would make it easier to refinance.
"The administration has put forward a plan to help more responsible borrowers refinance their mortgages - saving hundreds of dollars per month - while taking concrete steps to help families stay in their homes, revitalize the communities hardest hit by the housing crisis, and reform the mortgage lending market to better protect both consumers and taxpayers," Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher said in an e-mail.
Romney, on the other hand, would repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with streamlined regulations that make it easier for the private sector - especially smaller financial institutions - to reenter the mortgage market. He hasn't outlined what those new regulations would be.
"We have to have regulation, but we need it modern and up-to-date," he said at an Aug. 13 appearance in St. Augustine, Fla. "When you have massive regulations, it makes it harder for small banks and regional banks to be able to make the loan modifications they need to make and to also get credit to people."
Whether you already own property or hope to buy in the future, the next president's housing policies will affect you. Zigas and other experts suggested keeping an eye on the following areas:
The mortgage market
At the depth of the recession in 2008, a federal conservator took over housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to avoid a real-estate meltdown. Some form of federal guarantee has backed more than 90 percent of the U.S. home mortgages originated since then.
The next president will have to decide how much of the housing market will continue to be subsidized by the federal government, and through what structure. "No one is going to propose to keep Fannie and Freddie in their current form," said Sarah Rosen Wartell, a housing expert and president of the Urban Institute.
The decision will have a huge influence on the housing market and the price of real estate, both for the lower end of the market that competes with affordable rental housing and the higher end that has lagged, partly because of lower limits for the size of mortgages that can be purchased and resold by Fannie and Freddie.
The Obama administration last year outlined three possible ways to replace the role Fannie and Freddie play in the mortgage market, but did not choose one. Since then, the administration has changed rules and limits to continue to pare away at the two housing firms. On Aug. 17, the government announced a renegotiated conservatorship agreement for Fannie and Freddie that puts them on track to shrink faster than anticipated, about four years ahead of schedule.
Romney also would wind down the housing giants' portfolio, counting on private investors to replace the government backing. But neither candidate has proposed an alternative model.
Obama supports a continued federal tax deduction for mortgage interest, although his fiscal 2013 budget would limit the mortgage deduction for taxpayers making more than $250,000. Romney, meanwhile, chose Paul Ryan as his running mate, someone who has expressed support for eliminating tax breaks such as the mortgage deduction in favor of a simpler tax code and lower rates overall.
Foreclosures
On top of this is the question of foreclosure relief. With one-quarter of American homeowners owing more on their mortgages than the property is worth, we're hardly out of the woods, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a mortgage industry research and publishing firm.
"The bottom line is a lot of people are facing foreclosure because they can't afford their mortgage, and unless you want to give them a free mortgage you can't resolve that," Cecala said.
Both Obama and Romney support the government selling some of the 200,000 foreclosed-upon homes owned by Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Housing Administration and converting them to rental housing. The Obama administration announced this year it will begin pilot sales of these homes.
"Let's get them out of the government's hands and put them back in the hands of the public," Romney said in his St. Augustine speech. His campaign says converting vacant, foreclosed homes into healthy rental properties will boost home prices. Every 5 percent increase in home values means about 2 million fewer underwater properties, cutting the number of potential foreclosures as well.
Romney has also expressed support for the idea - promoted by former House speaker Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary debates - of more aggressively exploring foreclosure alternatives such as short sales, deed-in-lieu transactions and shared appreciation.
The administration's mortgage modification program has helped more than 5 million homeowners modify loans and stave off foreclosure, while the refinancing program has assisted more than 1.3 million people between April 2009 and May 2012, according to government reports.
Obama also proposed providing $15 billion to local communities to partner with the private sector in buying and rehabilitating foreclosed houses and expanding refinancing to homeowners whose mortgages are not held by government-backed entities. Both measures would require legislative approval.
"We've got historically low interest rates now, and the housing market is beginning to tick back up but it's still not at all where it needs to be," Obama said at an Aug. 20 press briefing. "We're going to be pushing Congress to see if they can pass a refinancing bill that puts $3,000 into the pockets of the average family who hasn't yet refinanced their mortgage."
Down payments
As the federal government has worked to right the housing market and reduce the amount of bad debt, down payments have steadily increased. Some of the rise results from financial institutions tightening their standards. But the government also sets required down payments in many cases.
The next administration will decide whether to continue increasing the amount of money needed to buy a home or whether it's time to loosen the standards to encourage a rebound in residential real estate.
At a time when mortgage rates are at all-time lows and housing prices are reasonable, many households that could benefit the most can't get credit or can't afford down payments, Zigas said. "What you're seeing is a continuation of the credit crunch that emerged in 2009," Cecala said. "Mortgage credit, in particular, is very tight and tough to come by."
In Romney's view, credit is scarce because lenders are unsure how they'll be affected by the new mortgage and housing finance rules being implemented under the mammoth Dodd-Frank Act.
A second Obama administration or Romney would take over "with the market adjusting to these new rules," Zigas said. "There are some who say it's going to lead to a contraction in mortgage credit. I don't believe that."
In the end, so many other parties are involved in crafting mortgage-market policy and implementing it that differences between Obama and Romney would be muted. Not only are other administration officials and lawmakers involved, but also think tanks, academic researchers, consumer advocates and representatives of all corners of the financial sector.
"The starting positions of President Romney or Obama are likely to be different, but the legislative process will lend itself to compromise," Wartell said.
Consumer protections
One of the Obama administration's signature actions has been the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the first financial regulator charged with protecting consumers from fraud, abuse and misrepresentation of mortgages and other financial products. Many Republicans have sharply criticized the CFPB and its power.
"Romney has staked out that he's opposed to the regulation, he wants to reduce it and roll back Dodd-Frank and limit the CFPB's authority," Cecala said.
While it's unlikely that a Romney administration would eliminate the new agency, it would certainly take a very different approach to regulating consumer finance and how much leverage Wall Street enjoys.
"There's a stark difference in rhetoric around the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But I think it is unrealistic regardless of administration to unwind the bureau," Wartell said. "Much more likely under Romney would be structural changes, less autonomy, less independence."
The bureau implements rules about which mortgages would be eligible for government backing and standards for mortgage industry professionals. Its officials also have power to take enforcement action against companies they contend are violating consumer rights. For instance, the agency gave advice to state attorneys general in the national mortgage servicer settlement and is continuing to probe the mortgage insurance business, among others.
"Our focus is on reforming the mortgage market system in a way that's going to, over the long term, provide more stability and continued access to mortgage finance for middle-class families, but is also going to get serious about addressing the dramatic failures," said Brian Deese, deputy director of the National Economic Council. "For a borrower, it means we're no longer going to have an industry where you can get tricked into loans you can't afford."
Repairing the economy
Ultimately, the future of the housing market is inextricably tied to the economy.
The more that people have well-paying jobs and can afford larger homes, the better the real-estate market will fare. In a healthy economy, the market would be more able to absorb the homes that are currently underwater and not for sale, and thus are exerting a drag on the economy, Zigas said.
Moreover, the path the next administration sets for addressing federal budget deficits and the national debt will determine how much money will be available for affordable housing, foreclosure prevention and homeownership initiatives.
Regardless of which candidate wins, some hard choices must be made about how to allocate funds to subsidize mortgages, prevent foreclosures, make rental housing affordable and other competing goals.
"In the context of not being able to help working Americans, I think the next administration is going to have to come to terms with what is an equitable housing policy - how to use those resources," Zigas said.
It's fair to say that almost everything having to do with a standard residential mortgage hangs in the balance of the election.
"The outcome of the election could affect what price you pay, whether you have such a product as a 30-year mortgage at a reasonable price, whether you have access, and whether the entire mortgage market is going to be served rather than just higher-income individuals," said Mark A. Willis, research fellow at New York University's Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.
Katherine Reynolds Lewisis a freelance writer.
Hints on their next steps
Three key areas where President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney differ on housing policy:
Obama
1Supports the Dodd-Frank overhaul of financial regulations, including stricter rules for mortgage professionals and a new consumer agency combating fraud and abuse.
2Proposed giving money to local authorities in hard-hit communities for partnering with the private sector on rehabilitating foreclosures and raising property values.
3Wants Congress to expand refinancing opportunities to underwater homeowners whose mortgages aren't held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
Romney
1Views Dodd-Frank as overly bureaucratic and would replace it with streamlined regulations aimed at encouraging private investment in mortgages.
2Sees big government as the problem that is holding back a housing recovery, not the solution.
3Considers the current credit crunch a result of uncertainty around the slow implementation of the mammoth Dodd-Frank regulations.
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1078 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
September 1, 2012 Saturday 7:06 PM EST
The truth? C'mon, this is a political convention;
The speeches at the Republican National Convention were par for the course.
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 1144 words
For all the outrage (on the left) about misrepresentations and misinformation in Rep. Paul Ryan's speech accepting the Republican nomination for vice president, my reaction was: par for the course.
We are, of course, talking about a political convention. The whole point is for the party to put its best foot forward to the American people. By its very nature, that means downplaying unpleasant facts, highlighting the positive and knocking down the opposing team.
In fact, until Ryan showed up, in the traditional role of a vice president attack dog, my impression was that, given the nasty, brutish attacks by both sides in this campaign, the Republicans were generally on good behavior.
The first night was a bit odd, since it was devoted to the political exploitation of a single Obama gaffe - "You didn't build that" - the Republicans blatantly misrepresent. The theme was so overdone, with virtually every speaker making reference to it, that it may have actually diluted the impact of the attack.
Ryan was so quickly labeled a fibber by the Obama campaign that one suspects it was a deliberate effort to tear down his reputation as a policy expert, similar to using attacks on Romney's Bain Capital record to undermine his reputation as a skilled business executive.
But worst convention speech ever? Please.
The gold standard for convention speeches filled with misrepresentations remains the speech of then-Sen. Zell Miller (R-Ga.) at the 2004 GOP convention attacking Democratic nominee John Kerry. Miller, who as a Democrat delivered the keynote address at the 1992 convention that nominated Bill Clinton, offered a slashing attack that was breathtaking in its dishonesty.
Miller accused Kerry of voting against a vast array of weapons systems, making it appear as if Kerry had repeatedly voted to kill urgently needed tools for the military - when in reality the charge was based on a single vote nearly 15 years earlier. More important, these were weapons that then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney (and the vice president in 2004) had urged Congress to kill. Miller also suggested that a quote Kerry had given to the Harvard Crimson 35 years earlier, when he had just returned from serving in the Vietnam war, represented his current policy toward the United Nations.
Now, that's a speech for a fact checker! The Washington Post did not have the Fact Checker column then, but it ran a front-page article detailing how he misled viewers with his language.
Four years ago, our colleagues at FactCheck.org catalogued a series of errors and misstatements by John McCain, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in their speeches. (Joe Biden got a pass.) All of them airbrushed their past or mischaracterized their opponents.
Palin, for instance, gave a self-serving account of her support for the "Bridge to Nowhere"- claiming she said "thanks but no thanks"- when in fact she had supported it until it was largely killed by Congress. This is a bigger failure to tell the whole story than Ryan criticizing Obama for doing nothing with the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction recommendation, without noting that he himself voted against the commission report .
Obama, meanwhile, knocked McCain for voting 90 percent of the time with his own party; he did not mention that he himself voted 97 percent of the time with Democrats. Obama and McCain also mischaracterized each other's proposals, using sometimes slippery facts.
For all the tough ads on television, this cycle's GOP convention was largely a kinder, gentler affair. In his acceptance speech, Mitt Romney toned down his rhetoric. He repeated some claims that have earned him Four Pinocchios (such as Obama going on an "apology tour" overseas) but he passed up many others, such as reprising an attack on an Obama administration change in welfare rules that his campaign claims is his most effective ad.
Contrast Romney's approach with Bob Dole in 1996, who also faced a young Democrat (Bill Clinton) who had overreached in his first two years and lost control of Congress. Dole's speech was remarkably tough and uncompromising - and it still reads that way 16 years later.
"It is demeaning to the nation that within the Clinton administration a corps of the elite who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned, should have the power to fund with your earnings their dubious and self-serving schemes," Dole thundered.
"Somewhere, a grandmother couldn't afford to call her granddaughter, or a child went without a book, or a family couldn't afford that first home, because there was just not enough money to make that call, buy the book or pay the mortgage or, for that matter, to do many other things that one has the right and often the obligation to do. Why? Because some genius in the Clinton administration took the money to fund yet another theory, yet another program and yet another bureaucracy."
Dole mocked the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for her best-selling book, "It Takes a Village," and even attacked the Clintons for where they sent their daughter to school. And he had this to say to teachers unions: "If education were a war, you would be losing it. If it were a business, you would be driving it into bankruptcy. If it were a patient, it would be dying. And to the teachers unions I say, when I am president, I will disregard your political power, for the sake of the parents, the children, the schools and the nation."
Romney's speech had none of that angry, dismissive tone. In fact, his speech in many ways was a carbon copy of the acceptance speech by the last Massachusetts politician nominated to run for president - John Kerry. Both began with an earnest effort to tell a gauzy version of their life story. Both, more in sorrow than in anger, recounted the failings of the incumbent president. And both sketched their policy prescriptions with rosy assumptions. They even both had a five-part plan to improve the economy.
Ultimately, convention speeches are about making the argument for your team. We should fully expect politicians to make their case using facts and figures that either tilt positive about their accomplishment - or negative about their opponents. As the fact checking business has blossomed in the news media, it has been increasingly hard for politicians to get away with such truth-shading without someone noticing.
Both political parties will stretch the truth if they believe it will advance their political interests. It's been a rough campaign so far, but the GOP convention that just ended was strictly in the mainstream for such party celebrations.
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1079 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 1, 2012 Saturday
Regional Edition
After the party is over . . .
BYLINE: Colbert I. King
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A19
LENGTH: 826 words
Tennessee Gov. Frank G. Clement delivered a rousing keynote address at the 1956 Democratic convention in Chicago that electrified the delegates and mesmerized a national television audience, including this revved-up 17-year-old.
Weeks later, the party's nominee, Adlai Stevenson, lost in a landslide, for a second time, to Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 "A Time for Choosing" speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater'sâ[#x2c6][#x161] candidacy was a powerful call to arms that did little to help the Arizona senator; he was crushed at the polls by President Lyndon Johnson.
And who can forget Mario Cuomo's sensational keynote address at the 1984 Democratic convention in July - and how little good it did Democratic standard-bearer Walter Mondale in November?
Conventions can be memorable events. They've been known to energize the party faithful. They can convert never-heard-ofs (say, Barack Obama) into celebrities.
Modern-day political conventions produce a steady stream of infomercials during prime time, all without paying for the coverage.
Conventions also have their pitfalls.
These quadrennial affairs have, on occasion, slipped off-message, producing sometimes-unanticipated adverse events. The violent clashes between police and protesters at the 1968 Democratic convention nearly overshadowed the political roughhousing on the convention floor.
Word of this week's incident in Tampa in which two Republican guests reportedly threw peanuts at a black CNN camerawoman, saying, "This is how we feed animals," is spreading like wildfire among African Americans and other minorities, obliterating the diversity message Republicans delivered on stage.
Then there was Paul Ryan's acceptance speech, most striking in the brazenness of its falsehoods. The address revealed a Republican vice presidential candidate without a sense of shame. To stand before a national audience and speak what he must have known was not the truth requires a hardiness of heart that is beyond the capacity and understanding of most honest people. Ryan pleased the party loyalists, but his cavalier treatment of the truth was chilling. This man a heartbeat from the presidency? Good Lord.
But conventions don't determine election outcomes.
That is true for the just-concluded GOP conclave and the Democratic convention next week.
The speech of New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie, as with the address San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro is scheduled to deliver, will fade with Labor Day memories.
So will images of Republican and Democratic conventioneers with their funny hats, goofy lapel pins and faces contorted with anger or cheering.
What follows the conventions is different. All the Hollywood producers and entertainment executives in the world can't dress up what is about to take place over the next two months.
The political ads will portray the presidential election as a no-holds-barred duel between the forces of good and the wily devil. Attack ads in this most expensive presidential campaign in U.S. history will continue to lie, distort and hit below the belt. But this year brings added wrinkles.
Republican attempts to suppress black and Hispanic voters are startling in 21st-century America.
There was Texas's requirement that voters show photo identification and purchase such ID if they don't have it - a burden that would fall more heavily on the poor, many of whom are brown and black. Thankfully, a U.S. appeals court panel in Washington blocked the Texas law on Thursday. But suppression of nonwhite voters continues in Pennsylvania and Florida.
That notwithstanding, this year's election will come down to what presidential elections are always about: one-on-one contests.
The real business at hand is to decide whether the nation should remain under the stewardship of President Obama or be handed to Mitt Romney.
The economy, debt, jobs and foreign policy will be familiar campaign fare, with much to be heard from commercials and surrogates.
But the real test is of the two individuals on the ballot. That is where questions of intelligence, character, integrity and trustworthiness come in.
This is the time for America to take the measure of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
My take: The McCarthyite patriotism issue, slyly insinuated against Obama for the past four years, is pure bunk. So, too, are suggestions that he is irresolute. Talk about having been dealt a bad hand: Obama faced a congressional Republican opposition determined to undermine his presidency from Day One.
Four years on, Obama is the most experienced, best-grounded, most honest and decent leader to take the country through the challenges that face us.
On the other hand, years of Romney watching reveal him to be a first-class poseur. His famous flip-flops, dodges and especially the pandering on display Thursday night show that he will pretend to be and say whatever he thinks is necessary to get elected.
Conventions mask none of that.
kingc@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1080 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 1, 2012 Saturday
Suburban Edition
Eastwood shoots from hip and gets blowback
BYLINE: Amy Argetsinger;Philip Rucker
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1188 words
Moments before Clint Eastwood approached the lectern at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night, he asked a stagehand to get him a chair.
Everyone just assumed he was going to sit in it.
Fans that night may have expected to hear fromhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/clint-eastwood-goes-unscripted-with-punchy-speech-at-republican-convention/2012/08/30/3b2a1e02-f317-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html "Dirty Harry": the cool, controlled enforcer, as deft with a quip as with a gun, effortlessly and eternally hip. Instead, they got something closer to Walt Kowalski, the grizzled old cuss of Eastwood's 2008 "Gran Torino": raw, unpolished, a little angry and suddenly much older than you realized.
Senior campaign aides said Friday that the unscripted routine by the actor-director - easily the biggest show-biz heavyweight to stand up for a GOP candidate since Frank Sinatra did it for Ronald Reagan - was something of a surprise.
The Oscar winner, 82, spoke off the cuff, having discussed a few talking points with campaign advisers and sketched out some rough remarks but preparing nothing for the prompters. Organizers were comfortable with this setup: At the early August fundraiser in Idaho where Eastwood first came out publicly for Mitt Romney, he delivered suave impromptu remarks that had other guests raving.
Instead, Eastwood's wacky conversation with the empty chair (standing in for President Obama - and viewed by about 33 million people, according to Nielsen) became an instant Internet meme. His rambling style triggered snark about his health and his age. His old-timey lawyer jokes brought on a wave of triumphant fact-checking/rebuttal (Romney, like Obama, has a JD).
Inside the Tampa convention hall, the crowd roared with delight at Eastwood's humor. But as Thursday night turned into Friday, Twitter and talking heads piled on the mockery, some claiming Eastwood had managed to upstage and undercut the Republican nominee's acceptance speech. Ann Romney coolly deemed the actor's performance "unique" Fridayon "CBS This Morning."
"I didn't know it was coming," she said with a nervous laugh.
Don't look for Eastwood on the campaign trail this fall. His longtime manager said Friday that the star was traveling back from Florida and unavailable for interview requests or comments - and that he will not speak to the press at all until he hits the promotional circuit for his next movie, "Trouble With the Curve," opening Sept. 21.
When Eastwood gives his next interviews, manager Leonard Hirshan said,"he's speaking about the picture, not everything else."
On Friday, the Romney campaign expressed gratitude for the support of a beloved screen icon - no matter how quirky his delivery.
"He went out and did what actors do sometimes: He did a little improv," said Stuart Stevens, Romney's chief strategist.
Convention producers warily eyed the clock as Eastwood ran over his allotted five minutes by six or seven minutes. And the empty-chair gimmick was a complete surprise.
"This was an idea, a moment that moved him, I would say, and he went with it," Stevens said.
He said Romney, standing backstage, laughed appreciatively through Eastwood's talk. And Stevens praised Eastwood for hitting key talking points: "For him to go out there and to say that there's a need to change presidents and that he supports Mitt Romney and talk about 23 million people out of work as he did and talk about when someone doesn't do their job you need to change, that's a powerful message."
Questioned by a reporter from an NBC affiliate in Hampton Roads, Va., Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, said, "I think Clint Eastwood was just being Clint Eastwood."
A rumored Eastwood appearance had been the buzz of the convention from Day 1, after several decades of the Hollywood establishment closing ranks behind Democrats. Entertainers have been especially helpful to the Obama administration, with A-listers such as George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker mounting mega-dollar fundraisers for his reelection.
"I know what you're thinking, you're thinking: 'What's a movie tradesman doing out here? They're all left-wingers out there!' " Eastwood told the convention hall audience Thursday. But there are indeed "conservative people, moderate people" in Hollywood, he said. They just "play it closer to the vest."
Despite dabbling in politics for years - most notably as the nonpartisan mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., from 1986 to 1988 - Eastwood's evolving and hard-to-pin-down views have added to his superstar mystique. An occasional Republican voter who allies with many socially liberal causes, he has long resembled a screenwriter's fantasy of the perfect square-jawed candidate, which may be why many fans project their beliefs onto him. His evocative but cryptic Chrysler ad that aired during this year's Super Bowl was interpreted by many pundits as a celebration of the Obama auto-industry bailout - although Eastwood, in fact, opposed it.
In an interview with The Washington Post's Ann Hornaday in November, Eastwood happily talked politics but made no pretense of being a wonk.
Many Hollywood types dabbling in advocacy love to show off their mastery of policy, but Eastwood ("I've never been a really astute political person") uttered the simple hopes and gripes of your typical man-on-the-street interview.
"They all come up now and they all say the same thing," he said of politicians, Republican and Democratic alike. "They tell you what they want to get in, and when they get in, they all do something different, so you get the futility aspect of it all."
Although he endorsed Republican John McCain in 2008, Eastwood said he felt good about Obama's election, at first. "I thought: 'Well, that's cool. . . . That'll be nice for the country and maybe it'll settle down a lot of racial issues.' " Instead, "it kind of went the other way," he told Hornaday, citing his frustration with how Obama seemed to pick sides in the hot-button dispute when African American scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested by a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass. "Just a bad way to jump into it," Eastwood said.
Romney didn't seem to be on Eastwood's agenda last fall. ("I liked that fellow from New Jersey, [Gov. Chris] Christie," he told Hornaday.) It was just over a month ago that he approached the former Massachusetts governor's campaign to express his support, and he got invited to a pair of Sun Valley, Idaho, events on Aug. 3.
"He didn't act like a Hollywood star," one guest said. The fundraiser, who was granted anonymity in order to speak candidly, noted that Eastwood had no entourage and made no demands. He posed for pictures with police officers and Secret Service agents and sat at a table eating dinner and conversing with other supporters.
"He really wowed both audiences in Sun Valley and could not have been more gracious to the attendees and to Mitt Romney and to the staff," the fundraiser said.
As for the speech Thursday night, the fundraiser said, "I think the nature of Clint Eastwood is he is unpredictable."
argetsinger@washpost.com
ruckerp@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1081 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 1, 2012 Saturday
Suburban Edition
Truth be told? That's no way to speak at a convention
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 1122 words
For all the outrage (on the left) about misrepresenta-tions and mis-information in Rep. Paul Ryan's speech accepting the Republican nomination for vice president, my reaction was: par for the course.
We are, of course, talking about a political convention. The whole point is for the party to put its best foot forward to the American people. By its very nature, that means downplaying unpleasant facts, highlighting the positive and knocking down the opposing team.
In fact, until Ryan showed up in the traditional role of a vice president attack dog, my impression was that, given the nasty, brutish attacks by both sides in this campaign, the Republicans were generally on good behavior.
The first night was a bit odd, since it was devoted to the political exploitation of a single Obama gaffe - "You didn't build that" - the Republicans blatantly misrepresent. The theme was so overdone, with virtually every speaker making reference to it, that it may have actually diluted the impact of the attack.
Ryan was so quickly labeled a fibber by the Obama campaign that one suspects it was a deliberate effort to tear down his reputation as a policy expert, similar to using attacks on Mitt Romney's Bain Capital record to undermine his reputation as a skilled business executive.
But worst convention speech ever? Please.
The gold standard for convention speeches filled with misrepresentations remains the speech of then-Sen. Zell Miller (R-Ga.) at the 2004 GOP convention attacking Democratic nominee John Kerry. Miller, who as a Democrat delivered the keynote address at the 1992 convention that nominated Bill Clinton, delivered a slashing attack that was breathtaking in its dishonesty.
Miller accused Kerry of voting against a vast array of weapons systems, making it appear as if Kerry had repeatedly voted to kill urgently needed tools for the military - when in reality the charge was based on a single vote nearly 15 years earlier. More important, these were weapons that then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney (and the vice president in 2004) had urged Congress to kill. Miller also suggested that a quote Kerry had given to the Harvard Crimson 35 years earlier, when he had just returned from serving in the Vietnam War, represented his current policy toward the United Nations.
Now, that's a speech for a fact checker! The Washington Post did not have the Fact Checker column then, but it ran _blanka front-page article detailing how he misled viewers with his language.
Four years ago, our colleagues at FactCheck.org catalogued a series of errors and misstatements by _blankJohn McCain, _blankBarack Obama and _blankSarah Palin in their speeches. (Joe Biden got a pass.) All of them airbrushed their pasts or mischaracterized their opponents.
Palin, for instance, gave a self-serving account of her support for the "Bridge to Nowhere"- claiming she said "thanks but no thanks"- when in fact she had supported it until it was largely killed by Congress. This is a bigger failure to tell the whole story than Ryan criticizing Obama for doing nothing with the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction recommendation, without noting that he himself voted against the commission report .
Obama, meanwhile, knocked McCain for voting 90 percent of the time with his own party; he did not mention that he himself voted 97 percent of the time with Democrats. Obama and McCain also mischaracterized each other's proposals, using sometimes slippery facts.
For all the tough ads on television, this cycle's GOP convention was largely a kinder, gentler affair. In his acceptance speech, Romney toned down his rhetoric. He repeated some claims that have earned him Four Pinocchios (such as Obama going on an _blank"apology tour" overseas), but he passed up many others, such as reprising an attack on an Obama administration change in welfare rules that his campaign claims is his most effective ad.
Contrast Romney's approach with Bob Dole's in 1996, when Dole also faced a young Democrat (Bill Clinton) who had overreached in his first two years and lost control of Congress. _blankDole's speech was remarkably tough and uncompromising - and it still reads that way 16 years later.
"It is demeaning to the nation that within the Clinton administration a corps of the elite who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned, should have the power to fund with your earnings their dubious and self-serving schemes," Dole thundered. "Somewhere, a grandmother couldn't afford to call her granddaughter, or a child went without a book, or a family couldn't afford that first home, because there was just not enough money to make that call, buy the book or pay the mortgage or, for that matter, to do many other things that one has the right and often the obligation to do. Why? Because some genius in the Clinton administration took the money to fund yet another theory, yet another program and yet another bureaucracy."
Dole mocked then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton for her best-selling book, "It Takes a Village," and even attacked the Clintons for where they sent their daughter to school. And he had this to say to teachers unions: "If education were a war, you would be losing it. If it were a business, you would be driving it into bankruptcy. If it were a patient, it would be dying. And to the teachers unions I say, when I am president, I will disregard your political power, for the sake of the parents, the children, the schools and the nation."
Romney's speech had none of that angry, dismissive tone. In fact, his speech in many ways was a carbon copy of _blankthe acceptance speech by the last Massachusetts politician nominated to run for president - John Kerry. Both began with an earnest effort to tell a gauzy version of their life story. Both, more in sorrow than in anger, recounted the failings of the incumbent president. And both sketched their policy prescriptions with rosy assumptions. They even both had a five-part plan to improve the economy.
Ultimately, convention speeches are about making the argument for your team. We should fully expect politicians to make their case using facts and figures that either tilt positive about their accomplishment - or negative about their opponents. As the fact-checking business has blossomed in the news media, it has been increasingly hard for politicians to get away with such truth-shading without someone noticing.
Both political parties will stretch the truth if they believe it will advance their political interests. It's been a rough campaign so far, but the GOP convention that just ended was strictly in the mainstream for such party celebrations.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read more FactChecker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1082 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
September 1, 2012 Saturday
Every Edition
H OW THE CANDID A TE WHO WINS THIS H O USE C OULD AFFECT Y OUR H O USE
BYLINE: Katherine Reynolds Lewis
SECTION: REAL ESTATE; Pg. E01
LENGTH: 2189 words
Four years after the housing bubble burst, there's much unfinished business regarding the restoration of the nation's real-estate market for the next president to tackle, experts across the political spectrum say.
Whether you prefer President Obama or Republican nominee Mitt Romney, there's no denying that the next president's economic and employment policies will be a key driver of the health of real estate for the next four years, not to mention the price of a mortgage. His policies will influence whether you can afford to buy a house or the amount of profit or loss you can expect from selling your house.
"The next president, whoever it turns out to be, is going to have a couple of big housing issues to address," said Barry Zigas, director of housing policy at the Consumer Federation of America. For starters, "what is the government's role in housing finance and will consumers have access to mortgages at affordable rates?"
On the campaign trail, Obama and Romney have hinted at the next steps they'd take, though neither campaign has outlined a comprehensive proposal for recovery of the housing market and private mortgage lending.
Obama would build on his programs already underway for foreclosure relief, expanded refinancing and loan modifications, while continuing to implement new housing finance rules and consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act. He also supports proposed legislation that would make it easier to refinance.
"The administration has put forward a plan to help more responsible borrowers refinance their mortgages - saving hundreds of dollars per month - while taking concrete steps to help families stay in their homes, revitalize the communities hardest hit by the housing crisis, and reform the mortgage lending market to better protect both consumers and taxpayers," Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher said in an e-mail.
Romney, on the other hand, would repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with streamlined regulations that make it easier for the private sector - especially smaller financial institutions - to reenter the mortgage market. He hasn't outlined what those new regulations would be.
"We have to have regulation, but we need it modern and up-to-date," he said at an Aug. 13 appearance in St. Augustine, Fla. "When you have massive regulations, it makes it harder for small banks and regional banks to be able to make the loan modifications they need to make and to also get credit to people."
Whether you already own property or hope to buy in the future, the next president's housing policies will affect you. Zigas and other experts suggested keeping an eye on the following areas:
The mortgage market
At the depth of the recession in 2008, a federal conservator took over housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to avoid a real-estate meltdown. Some form of federal guarantee has backed more than 90 percent of the U.S. home mortgages originated since then.
The next president will have to decide how much of the housing market will continue to be subsidized by the federal government, and through what structure. "No one is going to propose to keep Fannie and Freddie in their current form," said Sarah Rosen Wartell, a housing expert and president of the Urban Institute.
The decision will have a huge influence on the housing market and the price of real estate, both for the lower end of the market that competes with affordable rental housing and the higher end that has lagged, partly because of lower limits for the size of mortgages that can be purchased and resold by Fannie and Freddie.
The Obama administration last year outlined three possible ways to replace the role Fannie and Freddie play in the mortgage market, but did not choose one. Since then, the administration has changed rules and limits to continue to pare away at the two housing firms. On Aug. 17, the government announced a renegotiated conservatorship agreement for Fannie and Freddie that puts them on track to shrink faster than anticipated, about four years ahead of schedule.
Romney also would wind down the housing giants' portfolio, counting on private investors to replace the government backing. But neither candidate has proposed an alternative model.
Obama supports a continued federal tax deduction for mortgage interest, although his fiscal 2013 budget would limit the mortgage deduction for taxpayers making more than $250,000. Romney, meanwhile, chose Paul Ryan as his running mate, someone who has expressed support for eliminating tax breaks such as the mortgage deduction in favor of a simpler tax code and lower rates overall.
Foreclosures
On top of this is the question of foreclosure relief. With one-quarter of American homeowners owing more on their mortgages than the property is worth, we're hardly out of the woods, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a mortgage industry research and publishing firm.
"The bottom line is a lot of people are facing foreclosure because they can't afford their mortgage, and unless you want to give them a free mortgage you can't resolve that," Cecala said.
Both Obama and Romney support the government selling some of the 200,000 foreclosed-upon homes owned by Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Housing Administration and converting them to rental housing. The Obama administration announced this year it will begin pilot sales of these homes.
"Let's get them out of the government's hands and put them back in the hands of the public," Romney said in his St. Augustine speech. His campaign says converting vacant, foreclosed homes into healthy rental properties will boost home prices. Every 5 percent increase in home values means about 2 million fewer underwater properties, cutting the number of potential foreclosures as well.
Romney has also expressed support for the idea - promoted by former House speaker Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary debates - of more aggressively exploring foreclosure alternatives such as short sales, deed-in-lieu transactions and shared appreciation.
The administration's mortgage modification program has helped more than 5 million homeowners modify loans and stave off foreclosure, while the refinancing program has assisted more than 1.3 million people between April 2009 and May 2012, according to government reports.
Obama also proposed providing $15 billion to local communities to partner with the private sector in buying and rehabilitating foreclosed houses and expanding refinancing to homeowners whose mortgages are not held by government-backed entities. Both measures would require legislative approval.
"We've got historically low interest rates now, and the housing market is beginning to tick back up but it's still not at all where it needs to be," Obama said at an Aug. 20 press briefing. "We're going to be pushing Congress to see if they can pass a refinancing bill that puts $3,000 into the pockets of the average family who hasn't yet refinanced their mortgage."
Down payments
As the federal government has worked to right the housing market and reduce the amount of bad debt, down payments have steadily increased. Some of the rise results from financial institutions tightening their standards. But the government also sets required down payments in many cases.
The next administration will decide whether to continue increasing the amount of money needed to buy a home or whether it's time to loosen the standards to encourage a rebound in residential real estate.
At a time when mortgage rates are at all-time lows and housing prices are reasonable, many households that could benefit the most can't get credit or can't afford down payments, Zigas said. "What you're seeing is a continuation of the credit crunch that emerged in 2009," Cecala said. "Mortgage credit, in particular, is very tight and tough to come by."
In Romney's view, credit is scarce because lenders are unsure how they'll be affected by the new mortgage and housing finance rules being implemented under the mammoth Dodd-Frank Act.
A second Obama administration or Romney would take over "with the market adjusting to these new rules," Zigas said. "There are some who say it's going to lead to a contraction in mortgage credit. I don't believe that."
In the end, so many other parties are involved in crafting mortgage-market policy and implementing it that differences between Obama and Romney would be muted. Not only are other administration officials and lawmakers involved, but also think tanks, academic researchers, consumer advocates and representatives of all corners of the financial sector.
"The starting positions of President Romney or Obama are likely to be different, but the legislative process will lend itself to compromise," Wartell said.
Consumer protections
One of the Obama administration's signature actions has been the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the first financial regulator charged with protecting consumers from fraud, abuse and misrepresentation of mortgages and other financial products. Many Republicans have sharply criticized the CFPB and its power.
"Romney has staked out that he's opposed to the regulation, he wants to reduce it and roll back Dodd-Frank and limit the CFPB's authority," Cecala said.
While it's unlikely that a Romney administration would eliminate the new agency, it would certainly take a very different approach to regulating consumer finance and how much leverage Wall Street enjoys.
"There's a stark difference in rhetoric around the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But I think it is unrealistic regardless of administration to unwind the bureau," Wartell said. "Much more likely under Romney would be structural changes, less autonomy, less independence."
The bureau implements rules about which mortgages would be eligible for government backing and standards for mortgage industry professionals. Its officials also have power to take enforcement action against companies they contend are violating consumer rights. For instance, the agency gave advice to state attorneys general in the national mortgage servicer settlement and is continuing to probe the mortgage insurance business, among others.
"Our focus is on reforming the mortgage market system in a way that's going to, over the long term, provide more stability and continued access to mortgage finance for middle-class families, but is also going to get serious about addressing the dramatic failures," said Brian Deese, deputy director of the National Economic Council. "For a borrower, it means we're no longer going to have an industry where you can get tricked into loans you can't afford."
Repairing the economy
Ultimately, the future of the housing market is inextricably tied to the economy.
The more that people have well-paying jobs and can afford larger homes, the better the real-estate market will fare. In a healthy economy, the market would be more able to absorb the homes that are currently underwater and not for sale, and thus are exerting a drag on the economy, Zigas said.
Moreover, the path the next administration sets for addressing federal budget deficits and the national debt will determine how much money will be available for affordable housing, foreclosure prevention and homeownership initiatives.
Regardless of which candidate wins, some hard choices must be made about how to allocate funds to subsidize mortgages, prevent foreclosures, make rental housing affordable and other competing goals.
"In the context of not being able to help working Americans, I think the next administration is going to have to come to terms with what is an equitable housing policy - how to use those resources," Zigas said.
It's fair to say that almost everything having to do with a standard residential mortgage hangs in the balance of the election.
"The outcome of the election could affect what price you pay, whether you have such a product as a 30-year mortgage at a reasonable price, whether you have access, and whether the entire mortgage market is going to be served rather than just higher-income individuals," said Mark A. Willis, research fellow at New York University's Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.
Katherine Reynolds Lewis is a freelance writer.
Hints on their next steps
Three key areas where President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney differ on housing policy:
Obama
1Supports the Dodd-Frank overhaul of financial regulations, including stricter rules for mortgage professionals and a new consumer agency combating fraud and abuse.
2Proposed giving money to local authorities in hard-hit communities for partnering with the private sector on rehabilitating foreclosures and raising property values.
3Wants Congress to expand refinancing opportunities to underwater homeowners whose mortgages aren't held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
Romney
1Views Dodd-Frank as overly bureaucratic and would replace it with streamlined regulations aimed at encouraging private investment in mortgages.
2Sees big government as the problem that is holding back a housing recovery, not the solution.
3Considers the current credit crunch a result of uncertainty around the slow implementation of the mammoth Dodd-Frank regulations.
LOAD-DATE: September 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1083 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 31, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Facts Take a Beating In Acceptance Speeches
BYLINE: By MICHAEL COOPER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; CHECK POINT; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 1473 words
Representative Paul D. Ryan used his convention speech on Wednesday to fault President Obama for failing to act on a deficit-reduction plan that he himself had helped kill. He chided Democrats for seeking $716 billion in Medicare cuts that he too had sought. And he lamented the nation's credit rating -- which was downgraded after a debt-ceiling standoff that he and other House Republicans helped instigate.
And Mitt Romney, in his acceptance speech on Thursday night, asserted that President Obama's policies had ''not helped create jobs'' and that Mr. Obama had gone on an ''apology tour'' for America. He also warned that the president's Medicare cuts would ''hurt today's seniors,'' claims that have already been labeled false or misleading.
The two speeches -- peppered with statements that were incorrect or incomplete -- seemed to signal the arrival of a new kind of presidential campaign, one in which concerns about fact-checking have been largely set aside.
In recent weeks, the Romney campaign has broadcast television advertisements leveling the widely debunked assertion that Mr. Obama had gutted the work requirements for welfare recipients. The Obama campaign, for its part, ran a deceptive ad saying that Mitt Romney had ''backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in case of rape and incest,'' although he currently supports exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.
The growing number of misrepresentations appear to reflect a calculation in both parties that shame is overrated, and that no independent arbiters command the stature or the platform to hold the campaigns to account in the increasingly polarized and balkanized media firmament. Any unmasking of the lies or distortions, the thinking goes, rarely seeps into the public consciousness.
But an interesting question unfolding is whether there is a tipping point at which a candidate becomes so associated with falsehoods that it becomes part of his public persona -- which hampered Vice President Al Gore during his run for president in 2000, when his misstatements on the campaign trail were used to stoke the perception that he could not be trusted in general.
In the case of Mr. Ryan's speech, the jury is still out. It was received rapturously by the Republican Party faithful, but his many questionable assertions ensured that much of the analysis on Thursday focused on his accuracy more than his acumen.
The Obama campaign fanned the flames with a Web video mocking Mr. Ryan, showing anchors from CNN and Fox News questioning some of his statements. And Stephanie Cutter, the president's deputy campaign manager, was blunt. ''There's no delicate way to say this: last night Paul Ryan lied, repeatedly, knowingly and brazenly,'' she said.
Here are some of the misleading section of their convention speeches:
Deficit Commission
One of Mr. Ryan's most pointed attacks on Mr. Obama was on the deficit. ''He created a new bipartisan debt commission,'' Mr. Ryan noted. ''They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way and then did exactly nothing.''
Left unsaid: Mr. Ryan served on that commission himself, and his opposition to its final proposals helped seal its fate. The panel, known as the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission, made a number of recommendations that Mr. Ryan ultimately opposed on the grounds that they would have raised some taxes while failing to cut enough from health programs. His dismissal of the plan was seen as a significant blow to its chances of success, since it soured other House Republicans on it.
Credit Rating
In his attack on the president's time in office, Mr. Ryan said: ''It began with a perfect AAA credit rating for the United States. It ends with the downgraded America.''
When Standard & Poor's lowered the nation's credit rating, it was in large part because of the standoff last year over the debt ceiling -- which needed to be raised so the government could borrow money to pay for spending that Congress had already approved. The White House had asked Congress to simply raise the debt ceiling; Mr. Ryan and House Republicans balked at doing so without reaching a deal on significant spending cuts. The ensuing standoff took the nation to the brink of default.
In its statement explaining the downgrade, Standard & Poor's wrote that ''the political brinkmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policy making becoming less stable, less effective and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.''
Medicare
Mr. Ryan spoke out forcefully against the ''$716 billion funneled out of Medicare by President Obama,'' without noting that his own past budget plans had counted on the same savings. And he pledged to protect Medicare without explaining how the Romney-Ryan plan would change it. Mr. Romney said that the Medicare cuts would ''hurt today's seniors.'' In fact, the savings would come not from trimming benefits for current recipients, but from cutting the projected growth in reimbursements to hospitals and insurers over the next decade. The Medicare debate is shaping up as central to the election: Democrats say that the Romney-Ryan plan to reshape Medicare would force future beneficiaries to pay more for their health care, while Republicans fault Mr. Obama for cutting $716 billion in its projected growth.
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have proposed limiting the government's open-ended financial commitment to Medicare. Under their plan, the government would contribute a fixed amount on behalf of each beneficiary, and future beneficiaries could use that money to buy private insurance or to help pay for coverage under the traditional Medicare program. It would apply only to people currently under 55.
Mr. Ryan's earlier plans called for capping the rate at which Medicare spending would grow -- which analysts from groups including the Kaiser Family Foundation found would lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for future beneficiaries. The Romney campaign now says that their plan would work differently from Mr. Ryan's original proposal, and would have the flexibility to raise the proposed cap on spending if it does not keep up with costs.
The $716 billion cut to Medicare that Mr. Obama made will reduce payments to health maintenance organizations and hospitals and other health care providers. Mr. Ryan initially counted on the same savings in his budget plans.
G.M.'s Janesville Plant
Mr. Ryan appeared to criticize Mr. Obama for the closing of a General Motors plant in Mr. Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis. -- a decision made before the president was elected and before his bailout of the auto industry, which was credited with saving a number of other factories. He noted that Mr. Obama had visited the plant in 2008 and said, ''I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another hundred years.''
''Well, as it turned out,'' Mr. Ryan said, ''that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day.''
As a candidate, Mr. Obama did give an economic policy speech at the Janesville plant in February 2008. The decision to close the plant was made several months later -- as can be seen by a June 2008 letter from Mr. Ryan urging G.M. to reconsider.
It took some time for the plant to shut down, and some work continued there after Mr. Obama was sworn in as president.
The Ryan campaign said Thursday that the issue was not when the plant stopped production, but the fact that it has not reopened -- and pointed to accounts of an Obama campaign statement from the fall of 2008 in which he said, ''I will lead an effort to retool plants like the G.M. facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America."
While Mr. Obama bailed out the auto industry, saving jobs, and included money in the stimulus for ''green'' energy jobs, the Janesville plant did not benefit from his moves.
The Apology Tour
In his floor speech, Mr. Romney repeated his widely debunked charge that Mr. Obama had gone on an ''apology tour'' on America's behalf -- an accusation he feels so strongly about that he laid out his own worldview in a 2010 book he titled ''No Apology.''
But independent fact checkers have called the accusation a distortion, and it is hard to find evidence that Mr. Obama ever said he was sorry for the United States. Even in his speeches after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Obama offered a strong defense of American policies, including the war in Afghanistan, which was growing increasingly unpopular in the rest of the world.
PHOTO: Barack Obama touring the G.M. plant in Janesville, Wis., in 2008. (PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN GRESS/REUTERS)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/ryans-speech-contained-a-litany-of-falsehoods.html
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1084 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 31, 2012 Friday
The New York Times on the Web
Romney's Speech to the Republican Convention
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Politics; TEXT; Pg.
LENGTH: 3755 words
Following is the full text of Mitt Romney's address to the Republican National Convention, as prepared for delivery.
Mr. Chairman, delegates. I accept your nomination for President of the United States of America.
I do so with humility, deeply moved by the trust you have placed in me. It is a great honor. It is an even greater responsibility.
Tonight I am asking you to join me to walk together to a better future. By my side, I have chosen a man with a big heart from a small town. He represents the best of America, a man who will always make us proud -- my friend and America's next Vice President, Paul Ryan.
In the days ahead, you will get to know Paul and Janna better. But last night America got to see what I saw in Paul Ryan -- a strong and caring leader who is down to earth and confident in the challenge this moment demands.
I love the way he lights up around his kids and how he's not embarrassed to show the world how much he loves his mom.
But Paul, I still like the playlist on my iPod better than yours.
Four years ago, I know that many Americans felt a fresh excitement about the possibilities of a new president. That president was not the choice of our party but Americans always come together after elections. We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than what divides us.
When that hard fought election was over, when the yard signs came down and the television commercials finally came off the air, Americans were eager to go back to work, to live our lives the way Americans always have -- optimistic and positive and confident in the future.
That very optimism is uniquely American.
It is what brought us to America. We are a nation of immigrants. We are the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the ones who wanted a better life, the driven ones, the ones who woke up at night hearing that voice telling them that life in that place called America could be better.
They came not just in pursuit of the riches of this world but for the richness of this life.
Freedom.
Freedom of religion.
Freedom to speak their mind.
Freedom to build a life.
And yes, freedom to build a business. With their own hands.
This is the essence of the American experience.
We Americans have always felt a special kinship with the future.
When every new wave of immigrants looked up and saw the Statue of Liberty, or knelt down and kissed the shores of freedom just ninety miles from Castro's tyranny, these new Americans surely had many questions. But none doubted that here in America they could build a better life, that in America their children would be more blessed than they.
But today, four years from the excitement of the last election, for the first time, the majority of Americans now doubt that our children will have a better future.
It is not what we were promised.
Every family in America wanted this to be a time when they could get ahead a little more, put aside a little more for college, do more for their elderly mom who's living alone now or give a little more to their church or charity.
Every small business wanted these to be their best years ever, when they could hire more, do more for those who had stuck with them through the hard times, open a new store or sponsor that Little League team.
Every new college graduate thought they'd have a good job by now, a place of their own, and that they could start paying back some of their loans and build for the future.
This is when our nation was supposed to start paying down the national debt and rolling back those massive deficits.
This was the hope and change America voted for.
It's not just what we wanted. It's not just what we expected.
It's what Americans deserved.
You deserved it because during these years, you worked harder than ever before. You deserved it because when it cost more to fill up your car, you cut out movie nights and put in longer hours. Or when you lost that job that paid $22.50 an hour with benefits, you took two jobs at 9 bucks an hour and fewer benefits. You did it because your family depended on you. You did it because you're an American and you don't quit. You did it because it was what you had to do.
But driving home late from that second job, or standing there watching the gas pump hit 50 dollars and still going, when the realtor told you that to sell your house you'd have to take a big loss, in those moments you knew that this just wasn't right.
But what could you do? Except work harder, do with less, try to stay optimistic. Hug your kids a little longer; maybe spend a little more time praying that tomorrow would be a better day.
I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed. But his promises gave way to disappointment and division. This isn't something we have to accept. Now is the moment when we CAN do something. With your help we will do something.
Now is the moment when we can stand up and say, ''I'm an American. I make my destiny. And we deserve better! My children deserve better! My family deserves better. My country deserves better!''
So here we stand. Americans have a choice. A decision.
To make that choice, you need to know more about me and about where I will lead our country.
I was born in the middle of the century in the middle of the country, a classic baby boomer. It was a time when Americans were returning from war and eager to work. To be an American was to assume that all things were possible. When President Kennedy challenged Americans to go to the moon, the question wasn't whether we'd get there, it was only when we'd get there.
The soles of Neil Armstrong's boots on the moon made permanent impressions on OUR souls and in our national psyche. Ann and I watched those steps together on her parent's sofa. Like all Americans we went to bed that night knowing we lived in the greatest country in the history of the world.
God bless Neil Armstrong.
Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon. And I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us: that unique blend of optimism, humility and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.
That's how I was brought up.
My dad had been born in Mexico and his family had to leave during the Mexican revolution. I grew up with stories of his family being fed by the US Government as war refugees. My dad never made it through college and apprenticed as a lath and plaster carpenter. And he had big dreams. He convinced my mom, a beautiful young actress, to give up Hollywood to marry him. He moved to Detroit, led a great automobile company and became Governor of the Great State of Michigan.
We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place but I really don't remember it that way. My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to.
My mom and dad gave their kids the greatest gift of all -- the gift of unconditional love. They cared deeply about who we would BE, and much less about what we would DO.
Unconditional love is a gift that Ann and I have tried to pass on to our sons and now to our grandchildren. All the laws and legislation in the world will never heal this world like the loving hearts and arms of mothers and fathers. If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family -- and God's love -- this world would be a far more gentle and better place.
Mom and Dad were married 64 years. And if you wondered what their secret was, you could have asked the local florist -- because every day Dad gave Mom a rose, which he put on her bedside table. That's how she found out what happened on the day my father died -- she went looking for him because that morning, there was no rose.
My mom and dad were true partners, a life lesson that shaped me by everyday example. When my mom ran for the Senate, my dad was there for her every step of the way. I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice, ''Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?''
I wish she could have been here at the convention and heard leaders like Governor Mary Fallin, Governor Nikki Haley, Governor Susana Martinez, Senator Kelly Ayotte and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
As Governor of Massachusetts, I chose a woman Lt. Governor, a woman chief of staff, half of my cabinet and senior officials were women, and in business, I mentored and supported great women leaders who went on to run great companies.
I grew up in Detroit in love with cars and wanted to be a car guy, like my dad. But by the time I was out of school, I realized that I had to go out on my own, that if I stayed around Michigan in the same business, I'd never really know if I was getting a break because of my dad. I wanted to go someplace new and prove myself.
Those weren't the easiest of days -- too many long hours and weekends working, five young sons who seemed to have this need to re-enact a different world war every night. But if you ask Ann and I what we'd give, to break up just one more fight between the boys, or wake up in the morning and discover a pile of kids asleep in our room. Well, every mom and dad knows the answer to that.
Those days were toughest on Ann, of course. She was heroic. Five boys, with our families a long way away. I had to travel a lot for my job then and I'd call and try to offer support. But every mom knows that doesn't help get the homework done or the kids out the door to school.
I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine. And as America saw Tuesday night, Ann would have succeeded at anything she wanted to.
Like a lot of families in a new place with no family, we found kinship with a wide circle of friends through our church. When we were new to the community it was welcoming and as the years went by, it was a joy to help others who had just moved to town or just joined our church. We had remarkably vibrant and diverse congregants from all walks of life and many who were new to America. We prayed together, our kids played together and we always stood ready to help each other out in different ways.
And that's how it is in America. We look to our communities, our faiths, our families for our joy, our support, in good times and bad. It is both how we live our lives and why we live our lives. The strength and power and goodness of America has always been based on the strength and power and goodness of our communities, our families, our faiths.
That is the bedrock of what makes America, America. In our best days, we can feel the vibrancy of America's communities, large and small.
It's when we see that new business opening up downtown. It's when we go to work in the morning and see everybody else on our block doing the same.
It's when our son or daughter calls from college to talk about which job offer they should take....and you try not to choke up when you hear that the one they like is not far from home.
It's that good feeling when you have more time to volunteer to coach your kid's soccer team, or help out on school trips.
But for too many Americans, these good days are harder to come by. How many days have you woken up feeling that something really special was happening in America?
Many of you felt that way on Election Day four years ago. Hope and Change had a powerful appeal. But tonight I'd ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama? You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.
The President hasn't disappointed you because he wanted to. The President has disappointed America because he hasn't led America in the right direction. He took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business. Jobs to him are about government.
I learned the real lessons about how America works from experience.
When I was 37, I helped start a small company. My partners and I had been working for a company that was in the business of helping other businesses.
So some of us had this idea that if we really believed our advice was helping companies, we should invest in companies. We should bet on ourselves and on our advice.
So we started a new business called Bain Capital. The only problem was, while WE believed in ourselves, nobody else did. We were young and had never done this before and we almost didn't get off the ground. In those days, sometimes I wondered if I had made a really big mistake. I had thought about asking my church's pension fund to invest, but I didn't. I figured it was bad enough that I might lose my investors' money, but I didn't want to go to hell too. Shows what I know. Another of my partners got the Episcopal Church pension fund to invest. Today there are a lot of happy retired priests who should thank him.
That business we started with 10 people has now grown into a great American success story. Some of the companies we helped start are names you know. An office supply company called Staples -- where I'm pleased to see the Obama campaign has been shopping; The Sports Authority, which became a favorite of my sons. We started an early childhood learning center called Bright Horizons that First Lady Michelle Obama rightly praised. At a time when nobody thought we'd ever see a new steel mill built in America, we took a chance and built one in a corn field in Indiana. Today Steel Dynamics is one of the largest steel producers in the United States.
These are American success stories. And yet the centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success. Is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has led the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression? In America, we celebrate success, we don't apologize for it.
We weren't always successful at Bain. But no one ever is in the real world of business.
That's what this President doesn't seem to understand. Business and growing jobs is about taking risk, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding, but always striving. It is about dreams. Usually, it doesn't work out exactly as you might have imagined. Steve Jobs was fired at Apple. He came back and changed the world.
It's the genius of the American free enterprise system -- to harness the extraordinary creativity and talent and industry of the American people with a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow's prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today's.
That is why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: ''you are better off today than you were four years ago.''
Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president.
This president can ask us to be patient.
This president can tell us it was someone else's fault.
This president can tell us that the next four years he'll get it right.
But this president cannot tell us that YOU are better off today than when he took office.
America has been patient. Americans have supported this president in good faith.
But today, the time has come to turn the page.
Today the time has come for us to put the disappointments of the last four years behind us.
To put aside the divisiveness and the recriminations.
To forget about what might have been and to look ahead to what can be.
Now is the time to restore the Promise of America. Many Americans have given up on this president but they haven't ever thought about giving up. Not on themselves. Not on each other. And not on America.
What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn't take a special government commission to tell us what America needs.
What America needs is jobs.
Lots of jobs.
In the richest country in the history of the world, this Obama economy has crushed the middle class. Family income has fallen by $4,000, but health insurance premiums are higher, food prices are higher, utility bills are higher, and gasoline prices have doubled. Today more Americans wake up in poverty than ever before. Nearly one out of six Americans is living in poverty. Look around you. These are not strangers. These are our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans.
His policies have not helped create jobs, they have depressed them. And this I can tell you about where President Obama would take America:
His plan to raise taxes on small business won't add jobs, it will eliminate them;
His assault on coal and gas and oil will send energy and manufacturing jobs to China;
His trillion dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk;
His $716 billion cut to Medicare to finance Obamacare will both hurt today's seniors, and depress innovation -- and jobs -- in medicine.
And his trillion-dollar deficits will slow our economy, restrain employment, and cause wages to stall.
To the majority of Americans who now believe that the future will not be better than the past, I can guarantee you this: if Barack Obama is re-elected, you will be right.
I am running for president to help create a better future. A future where everyone who wants a job can find one. Where no senior fears for the security of their retirement. An America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads them to a good job and a bright horizon.
And unlike the President, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. It has 5 steps.
First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.
Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance.
Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.
Fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.
And fifth, we will champion SMALL businesses, America's engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare.
Today, women are more likely than men to start a business. They need a president who respects and understands what they do.
And let me make this very clear -- unlike President Obama, I will not raise taxes on the middle class.
As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America's first liberty: the freedom of religion.
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family.
I will begin my presidency with a jobs tour. President Obama began with an apology tour. America, he said, had dictated to other nations. No Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators.
Every American was relieved the day President Obama gave the order, and Seal Team Six took out Osama bin Laden. But on another front, every American is less secure today because he has failed to slow Iran's nuclear threat.
In his first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran. We're still talking, and Iran's centrifuges are still spinning.
President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus, even as he has relaxed sanctions on Castro's Cuba. He abandoned our friends in Poland by walking away from our missile defense commitments, but is eager to give Russia's President Putin the flexibility he desires, after the election. Under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty, and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone.
We will honor America's democratic ideals because a free world is a more peaceful world. This is the bipartisan foreign policy legacy of Truman and Reagan. And under my presidency we will return to it once again.
You might have asked yourself if these last years are really the America we want, the America won for us by the greatest generation.
Does the America we want borrow a trillion dollars from China? No.
Does it fail to find the jobs that are needed for 23 million people and for half the kids graduating from college? No.
Are its schools lagging behind the rest of the developed world? No.
And does the America we want succumb to resentment and division? We know the answer.
The America we all know has been a story of the many becoming one, uniting to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness.
Everywhere I go in America, there are monuments that list those who have given their lives for America. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation, or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag, fighting for a single purpose. They pledged allegiance to the UNITED States of America.
That America, that united America, can unleash an economy that will put Americans back to work, that will once again lead the world with innovation and productivity, and that will restore every father and mother's confidence that their children's future is brighter even than the past.
That America, that united America, will preserve a military that is so strong, no nation would ever dare to test it.
That America, that united America, will uphold the constellation of rights that were endowed by our Creator, and codified in our Constitution.
That united America will care for the poor and the sick, will honor and respect the elderly, and will give a helping hand to those in need.
That America is the best within each of us. That America we want for our children.
If I am elected President of these United States, I will work with all my energy and soul to restore that America, to lift our eyes to a better future. That future is our destiny. That future is out there. It is waiting for us. Our children deserve it, our nation depends upon it, the peace and freedom of the world require it. And with your help we will deliver it. Let us begin that future together tonight.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/romneys-speech-to-the-republican-convention.html
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Text
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1085 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Learning Network)
August 31, 2012 Friday
Election Unit, Part 4: What Do You Think?
BYLINE: MICHAEL GONCHAR
SECTION: EDUCATION
LENGTH: 1130 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mini-Unit 4 in our Election Unit asks students to write an editorial endorsement for one candidate and to hold a mock election. The unit includes lesson activities, projects and useful handouts.
If you've been following our Election Week posts this week, you know we've been publishing sections of a flexible unit, intended to work with any day's Times, to help students think about the candidates and issues of this year's presidential race.
The unit is focused around this question "How Would the Presidential Campaigns Change if the Voting Age Were 13?" We invite students to answer it on our blog.
So far the posts have included an overview of the entire unit, mini-units exploring the questions "Who Are the Candidates?" and "What Are the Issues?" and "How Are the Candidates Running Their Campaigns?" Finally, the unit we present below asks students to decide who think should win the 2012 election.
Mini-Unit 4: What Do You Think?
Essential Question 4: Who Do You Think Should Win the Election?
Projects: Editorial and Mock Election
Overview: For this final mini-unit, students explore what they think about the candidates and why they think that way. They have already researched the candidates and issues, and they have analyzed how the campaigns are being run. They will sort through all of this information to develop a logical argument for why one candidate is better than the other, which they will articulate in an editorial endorsement. Then they will hold a mock election for the grade, school or community using all of the materials they generated during the unit. (For a full list of the Common Core State Standards this unit will address, please see our introductory post.)
One-Question Interview: You might use this exercise (PDF) as a kind of informal assessment tool as the unit comes to a close by having students develop about 15 questions that have come up over the course of this unit that they would now like to interview one another about. The questions can range from "What candidate would you vote for and why?" to "What do you think Mitt Romney's (or President Obama's) campaign could do right now to attract youth voters?" to "What aspects of this presidential race are most interesting to you?" or "What aspects of the race are you least interested in?"
Once students have collaborated on creating the questions and each student has been assigned one to ask, students walk around the classroom and ask their classmates "their" question, using our one question interview graphic organizer (PDF) to keep track of responses. Then, have them return to their seats, tally and read over what they learned, and draw conclusions. Students might then share what they learned as a way to self-assess how successful this unit has been in deepening their understanding of what's at stake in November.
Project | Write an Editorial: Students should imagine that they are writing an editorial for The New York Times answering the question: which candidate should be elected president? In their editorials, they should reference what they learned about the candidates, their positions on the campaign issues and the ways they run their campaigns. Students can read any past Times presidential endorsement from 1860 to 2008 using the interactive "New York Times Endorsements Through the Ages."
Each weekday we ask a new Student Opinion question, and some time during this election season we plan on asking students who think should be elected president - so stay tuned, since your students will have a chance to share what they think about the election on the Learning Network.
Culminating Project | Mock Election: This entire unit has placed students front and center in the presidential campaign. With the mock election they now get to run their own campaigns using the ideas they learned and the materials they created to try to sway peers and teachers to vote for "their" candidate. In this unit students already created three important types of materials that they will use to run the mock election:
Candidate Profiles
Issues-Based Campaign Materials (for example, brochures, posters, television commercials, campaign buttons)
Campaign Speeches
With these resources, your only choice is how ambitious to get. Now that students have researched different campaign strategies, they can create additional campaign materials to try to sway voters at the mock election, like TV commercials, banners, posters or leaflets. If they conducted opposition research during the first mini-unit, they can use what they learned to point out why the other candidate is the wrong choice (also known as negative advertising). The class could become a campaign "factory" for a day or two while students prepare for the coming mock election.
As for the mock election itself, some schools create a special class schedule or hold election nights when they invite the entire school community to participate. An alternative is to hold a smaller mock election inside your class with your students and invited guests from other classes or grades.
During the mock election, students can deliver their speeches, hand out pamphlets and engage with voters. If they created TV commercials or candidate Facebook pages, you can show these to the whole group or screen them on laptops around the room. If you are using a gymnasium or other large setting for the mock election, you may want to have students set up issue booths where they can talk to voters about the different issues, like the environment or taxes.
If your mock election will not include any visitors, then you may want your students to share their opinions with one another by reading all or part of their editorial endorsements before they vote. If your timing is right, you can submit your students' votes to a national mock election so that they are counted along with other schools throughout the country.
Reflection: When the mock election is over, students should have a chance to reflect on the whole unit. What did they learn? About the candidates? About the issues? About how elections are run? Has their opinion changed at all over the course of the unit? How has the unit affected their understanding of our democratic process?
Related: The Learning Network has additional lessons on endorsements and figuring out one's political viewpoint if you want to teach these topics in more depth:
2007 | "The Political Is Personal: Exploring Your Own Personal Political Philosophy"
2008 | "Raw Endorsement: Exploring the Role that New York Times Endorsements Have Played in Presidential Elections Throughout History"
If you haven't done so already, tell us how teaching about this election. If we hear from enough readers, we'll choose our favorite ideas to feature on the blog.
Election Unit, Part 3: The Campaign Strategy
Election Unit, Part 2: What Are the Issues?
Election Unit, Part 1: Who Are the Candidates?
Our Election 2012 Unit: An Overview
How Would the Presidential Campaigns Change if the Voting Age Were 13?
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1086 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
Jobs recovery is all over the map;
Hot and cold growth in swing states could have presidential implications
BYLINE: Paul Davidson and Barbara Hansen, USA TODAY
SECTION: MONEY; Pg. 1B
LENGTH: 1825 words
After cutting its staff by 30% in the recession, Dura-Bond Industries is hiring 75 workers for a planned Pittsburgh-area factory that will make pipeline coatings to feed a natural gas drilling boom that's lifting the state's economy.
In West Palm Beach, Fla., a far more tenuous rebound in residential and commercial construction is underway. Uncertain whether the recovery will strengthen, land planners Ken and Wendy Tuma have added just two employees to their staff of 22 recently, opting to put in extra hours themselves to handle the slightly heavier workload.
Pennsylvania and Florida, both key battleground states in this fall's presidential election, highlight a jobs recovery that's been uneven across the 50 states and Washington, D.C. While Pennsylvania has regained 57% of the jobs it lost in the recession, Florida has recaptured just 19%, based on average monthly employment gains in the second quarter.
More than three years after the Great Recession ended, the U.S. has recovered slightly less than half of the 8.8 million jobs that vanished in the downturn, producing a patchwork of thriving state economies, some still troubled and many in a wide in-between. Generally, energy strongholds are leading the jobs recovery. The Rust Belt has made significant strides on an auto industry rebound and rising exports but is still well off pre-recession peaks. And states pummeled by the housing crash are trailing.
About half the states have recouped about a third or fewer of their lost jobs. Just four, and Washington, D.C., have returned to peak employment, according to USA TODAY's analysis of quarterly data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics starting from January 2007.
IHS Global Insight expects nearly half the states to return to peak employment by the end of 2013, more than four years after the recovery began. Twenty-three states aren't expected to reclaim all their lost jobs until 2015 or later.
The wide disparities among states could help tip the election, possibly benefiting President Obama in swing states that have recovered most or all of their lost jobs and giving Republican nominee Mitt Romney an advantage in states that are lagging.
"It's not a conclusive factor, but it's an important part of the environment," says Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College in Minnesota.
Neither candidate appears to have a clear edge. Six swing states -- Virginia, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio -- are within 1.5% to 5.1% of their pre-recession employment peaks. The other six -- North Carolina, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida and Nevada -- are 5.2% to 12.6% below their peaks.
Nationwide, the glacial payroll recovery can be traced to a bruising downturn sparked by a real estate crash that decimated household wealth and set off a credit crisis that slowed lending. In July, U.S. unemployment ticked up from 8.2% to 8.3%, and the jobless rate rose in 44 states, the most states to post a monthly increase in three years.
The slow upswing is affecting regions of the country less uniformly than previous recoveries, says IHS economist Jim Diffley. In the Northeast, for example, a high-tech rebound is bolstering job growth in Massachusetts and New York, but a slowdown in pharmaceuticals is hobbling New Jersey. The real estate downturn, meanwhile, has hampered Florida and Georgia far more than Tennessee and Kentucky, both of which are benefiting from the auto industry comeback.
Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, attributes the current recovery's 50-state hodgepodge to the fact that industries such as technology, biotech and global finance are no longer concentrated in hubs such as New York and the Silicon Valley, but rather are spread across the country.
"You can find pockets of strength everywhere and pockets of weakness everywhere," he says.
Here's a look at the jobs recovery in some of the strongest, weakest and middle-of-the-pack states.
Fuel and food drive leaders
Just four states -- oil-producing strongholds North Dakota, Louisiana, Alaska and Texas -- have returned to peak employment, riding a global energy boom. Other energy and agricultural states in the nation's breadbasket, including Oklahoma, Nebraska and South Dakota, are within a percentage point of their peak. All these states lost relatively few or no jobs in the downturn and have benefited from a worldwide surge in food and energy prices.
North Dakota, for example, grew payrolls through the recession. Unconventional drilling techniques are extracting oil from rock formations, pushing the state past Alaska as the nation's No.2 oil producer behind Texas. Since 2007, oil production in the state has increased fivefold, and employment in the mining and logging sector has swelled from 5,000 to 22,000. The surge is causing hotel-room shortages as roughnecks flood the state for three-week stints, boosting payrolls in leisure and hospitality and professional and business services to all-time highs.
"We are the land of milk and honey," says Andy Peterson, president of the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce.
Entrepreneur Shannon Gangl is reaping benefits on all fronts. Occupancy at his three hotels in Bismarck has risen from 65% to more than 80%, leading him to boost staffing to 250 from 200.
A Montana Mike's franchisee that Gangl recently opened in Minot to take advantage of the oil boom set a national company record for opening-week sales. Hiring 130 workers for the restaurant was so tough that he's paying them twice what employees earn at his other eateries in the state, forcing him to charge an extra $2 per entre.
And with sales at his concrete-pouring company up fivefold vs. three years ago, Gangl stopped taking bids for 2012 projects two months ago. He recently bought several 10-seat planes to shuttle oil executives from offices in Bismarck to Williston oil fields. "The opportunities are endless right now," he says.
Some states roar back
Some states lost jobs moderately in the downturn and have rebounded strongly on technology, biotech and natural gas drilling. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, for instance, each lost more than 4% of their payrolls but have recouped more than half those losses.
A natural gas drilling boom in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale near Pittsburgh has nearly doubled energy-industry employment the past five years and offset sharp job losses by Philadelphia's budget-strapped city government, according to BLS and Moody's. The natural gas frenzy is lifting makers of the pipes needed to transport the fuel to electricity producers and chemical manufacturers.
Dura-Bond laid off 150 of its 500 workers in the recession as financing for long-haul gas pipes dried up, Vice President Jason Norris says. But since then, sales are up 50%. Besides building the pipe-coating plant, slated to open this fall, the Export, Pa., company has increased staffing at its three existing Pennsylvania factories by 10% to 400. "I have a lot more business because of the Marcellus," Norris says.
In the Boston area, growth in technology and biotech is driving the recovery, even pushing up employment in the formerly beleaguered construction industry to a four-year high in July. Tocci Building Cos. recently hired about seven employees to oversee construction of a $1 billion office and lab center in Cambridge that will house life sciences firms. Demand for such projects is so high that Tocci was turned down by several subcontractors, says executive Laura Handler. After cutting 40% of its 100 workers in the recession, payrolls have climbed back to 75.
Utah and Colorado have mounted even more robust comebacks, partly as a result of growth in both high-tech and natural gas exploration. Employment in each state fell 6% to 7% but more than half those jobs have returned.
Manufacturing climbs back
The Rust Belt was hit more severely in the downturn as manufacturers intensified a strategy of moving jobs overseas and replacing employees with automation. Ohio, Illinois and Michigan have reclaimed about a quarter to a third of their lost jobs as a result of the auto rebound, strong exports of factory machinery and efforts to diversify decades-old industrial bases.
While Michigan has led the auto rebound, the nascent lithium battery industry has fizzled because of weak electric vehicle sales. The state has lost more than 10% of its population, which has shrunk its tax base and contributed to an 8% decline in state and local government payrolls. Michigan's employment is still 7% off its peak.
Ohio has fared somewhat better -- payrolls are 5.1% below peak -- thanks in part to a diverse economy that features a roaring steel industry that's supplying area natural gas drillers and the growth of a biomedical cluster in Cleveland.
The Columbus area -- a mix of corporate headquarters, manufacturers, universities and health care facilities -- has nearly recovered all the jobs it lost in the slump. Kenny McDonald of Columbus 2020, an economic development group, largely credits an aggressive effort to persuade 200 companies to locate or expand in the area over the past 18 months.
Quantum Health, a 280-employee manager of health benefit plans for corporations, has added 50 workers so far this year and plans to hire another 475 by 2014, says CEO Kara Trott. The firm was considering moving to Texas or Colorado to tap a larger pool of bilingual job candidates but was swayed by about $7 million in city and county incentives.
Housing-bust states lag
States hurt most in the real estate crash -- Nevada, Florida, Arizona and California -- have made small strides in recovering their lost jobs, but are among the furthest from their peak employments. The bust crushed household wealth and slashed construction industry payrolls by nearly half or more.
Few of those construction jobs have returned. And plummeting real estate values and property taxes have forced the states to chop state and local government payrolls.
Yet a technology boom in Northern California is aiding that state's recovery. Gumas Advertising in San Francisco has boosted its staff from 14 to 22 this year to handle new business from social media and other tech firms, says CEO John Gumas.
And travel and tourism is leading a modest recovery in all four states. Florida has recouped nearly 70% of jobs lost in leisure and hospitality on increased business travel, according to BLS and the West Palm Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Still, a sense of caution pervades the business community, says Dennis Grady, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches. Russell Greene, CEO of Grand Bank, trimmed his staff to 62 from 100 as capital shrank to $16 million from $50 million. And while small-business loan applications have increased lately, he hasn't opened the lending spigots.
"Years ago, you basically looked somebody in the eyes and if it looked like they were going to repay you, you gave him the loan," he says. "Things have changed quite a bit."
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo Photos by Jason A. Cohn for USA TODAY Doing well: Ed Burdwin rolls a pipe off the line at Dura-Bond Industries in McKeesport, Pa.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: COVER STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1087 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
The man we need at the helm;
ANOTHER VIEW
BYLINE: Mia Love
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 12A
LENGTH: 371 words
When thinking about any political poll, we should remember these wise words from Gov. Chris Christie's keynote convention address: "Real leaders do not follow polls. Real leaders change polls."
I would also offer a slight modification to a line from my own convention speech: We are not better off than we were four years ago, and no rhetoric, bumper sticker, campaign ad -- or poll -- can change that.
Much ink has been spilled in the news media over Mitt Romney's alleged "likability deficit" in polls. I have had the opportunity to interact with Gov. and Mrs. Romney on a number of occasions (their son Josh is my campaign chairman). I can personally attest that Gov. Romney is a very warm, engaging and, yes, likable person. This has been magnified by his wife's comments in Tampa about his background, record and character. As voters more fully discover the exemplary husband, father, businessman and leader Mitt Romney is, they will see he is the man we need at the helm in these troubled times.
The emphasis on "likability" misunderstands what this election is all about. After four years of anemic growth, record sustained unemployment, and unprecedented deficits and debt, Americans are not looking for a golf buddy or the man with whom they would most like to share a (root) beer. Americans are looking for a leader who can fix our economy, restore America's greatness and preserve the American dream.
Gov. Romney has maintained a consistent and substantial lead in the polls in questions regarding economic and budgetary stewardship. These are the issues that will decide this election.
More important than the polls, however, is the record. Barack Obama has had four years to turn our economy around and he has failed. Mitt Romney has turned around countless companies, the Winter Olympics and a floundering state. Americans want to get their nation's miraculous economic engine revving again at full speed, and there is only one candidate who has proved himself to be a mechanic.
The only poll that really matters is the one to be taken on Nov. 6 at the ballot box, and I am confident Mitt Romney will come out on top.
Mia Love, a Republican congressional candidate from Utah, addressed the GOP convention Tuesday.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: EDITORIAL
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1088 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
Romney leads unified GOP into battle;
Post-convention bounce looks likely, but can he build on it?
BYLINE: Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 1038 words
To Democrats who have denounced him as an untrustworthy flip-flopper and Republicans who once derided him as a "Massachusetts moderate," Mitt Romney finally defined himself this week -- as a cheerful conservative capable of rescuing the country from economic collapse.
Think Ronald Reagan meets Clint Eastwood, both of whom played key roles -- Reagan in a video, Eastwood in person -- as the Republican National Convention ended Thursday.
After 5 years of campaigning for president, Willard Mitt Romney took his most important step toward telling the American people who he is and what he stands for.
In doing so, he appeared to unify a Republican Party that had doubted both his record and his resolve. It helped that he brought his new best friend, a rock-ribbed conservative running mate named Paul Davis Ryan, along for the ride.
If there are any misgivings remaining among the party faithful, their determination to run President Obama out of the White House in November may be incentive enough to join the Romney-Ryan bandwagon.
"Everybody's together on this," says former Virginia governor James Gilmore, president of the Free Congress Foundation, who ran for president as a conservative in 2008. "I'm not hearing any sense of rebellion at all against the Romney candidacy."
Maybe not -- but it took years for Romney to earn the embrace he finally received at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on Thursday night. He was from the liberal state of Massachusetts. He had worked with Democrats, even on a state health insurance program that became the model for what he now calls "Obamacare."
And then there were the negative TV ads -- from his Republican primary opponents and especially from President Obama's campaign, which has pounded him mercilessly on both policy and personal fronts.
Meet Mitt Romney
"Mitt's story has been told from one side, and it's been the Obama side," Romney campaign pollster Neal Newhouse says.
As for telling his own story on the stump, "This is not a natural thing for him," Newhouse says.
So before Romney's acceptance speech, campaign organizers rolled out speakers to attest to his character.
Bain Capital colleagues expressed wonder at his business acumen. Former Olympians lauded his saving of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Former Massachusetts officials recounted his record as governor. His lieutenant governor noted how many women he hired.
Perhaps most important in fleshing out the Romney story, friends from his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told stories of service and charity, from helping young David Oparowski write his will before he died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to helping church member Pam Finlayson fold clothes. "By the time Mitt left," she said, "not only did I feel welcome, my laundry was done!"
Romney, who entered the hall from the back with handshakes and hugs, spoke at length about his life story. That left less time to criticize Obama. But he did say this: "You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him."
And in mocking tones that drew appreciative laughs from the partisan crowd, he added this: "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family."
A lengthy video on Romney's life was shown before the key 10 p.m. hour, denying many Americans the chance to see it on TV. That was done so that Eastwood would come on stage while the networks were going live.
And in another display of orchestrated planning, the only hand-painted signs visible in the hall were those heralding two key demographic groups. Most read "Women love Mitt" and "Hispanics for Romney."
The Obama campaign has been quick to react to the good GOP vibes. The Democrats' "war room" here has held press conferences and sent out e-mails and tweets on a regular basis.
On Thursday, Sen. John Kerry -- the party's 2004 nominee, who was subjected to a $23 million negative ad campaign by a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- sent out a fundraising appeal. "I have one message burned into my memory for everyone who cares about the outcome of this year's presidential election: Respond quickly and powerfully to attacks from the other side," he wrote.
Romney's three-day convention gives Democrats several reasons to be concerned:
The race, razor-close for months, now could see a Romney bounce. That should help in states where voters can vote weeks before Election Day, including Colorado, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina.
Three weeks of running with Ryan on the ticket -- and often by his side -- has made Romney a better campaigner. Tough talk in Tampa added to his image as a fighter, from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's "Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths" to former secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's "We cannot lead from behind."
Three days of choreographed speeches and videos here have gone a long way toward making Romney seem more down to earth -- not an easy task for someone worth an estimated $250 million. His wife, Ann, spoke of their love and "real marriage." Their five handsome sons made the rounds of cable TV shows. And at the end of Romney's speech, as red, white and blue balloons dropped from the ceiling, the stage was flooded with many of the 18 Romney grandchildren.
'Make my day!'
While Romney might not have Reagan's charm, the appearance of Eastwood didn't hurt. Just six months ago Eastwood was featured in a Super Bowl ad about the comeback at Chrysler, which some viewed as an endorsement of Obama.
"When somebody does not do the job, we've got to let them go," he said before his trademark "Make my day!"
And while Romney still might not be voters' top choice as someone to have a beer with -- and not just because, as a Mormon, he doesn't drink -- his advisers say that won't matter.
"They're going to look for somebody they think can turn the country around and keep it from going over a cliff," political director Rich Beeson says.
Romney and Ryan leave Tampa not just on a campaign but a mission. They plan to talk about solutions, not hope and change.
What's not clear is whether that debate will embolden voters or scare them. Democrats clearly hope it's the latter.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By Robert Deutsch, USA TODAY Mitt's moment: Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney greets a throng of sign-waving supporters on Thursday night.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1089 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
'We deserve better';
Romney, Ryan take message on tour
BYLINE: Gregory Korte, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 454 words
Launched from the Republican National Convention with the rallying cry "We deserve better," Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan open their general election campaign today with their first tour of key swing states as the party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees.
Romney's acceptance of the nomination Thursday night came with a forcefully delivered 37-minute speech that blamed President Obama for four years of "disappointment and division."
His moment on the platform caps a quest his father, Michigan governor George Romney, abandoned in 1968 and the son picked up while serving as Massachusetts governor in 2007.
From the same podium where Republicans spent three days attacking Obama, mocking his experience and comparing him to one-term President Jimmy Carter, Romney's remarks softened the tone to one of disillusionment.
He said he wished President Obama succeeded.
"Hope and change had a powerful appeal," Romney said. "But tonight I'd ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama? You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had, was the day you voted for him."
Romney followed a column of character witnesses who told often personal stories about him as a governor, Mormon pastor and businessman.
Pat Oparowski, whose son Romney befriended before his death from lymphoma, said, "How many men do you know would take the time out of their busy lives to visit a terminally ill 14-year-old and help him settle his affairs?"
Grant Bennett, who took over for Romney as a Mormon pastor, said "Week after week and year after year, he met with those seeking help with the burdens of real life."
Then the convention took a comedic twist, with actor Clint Eastwood endorsing Romney by ad-libbing an imagined debate with an empty chair representing Obama.
Romney and Ryan will tour Florida, Virginia and Ohio over the next two days.
Obama will visit swing states Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia this weekend, then Charlotte for the Democratic convention, which begins Tuesday. He is working on his convention speech, White House press secretary Jay Carney said.
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said the Charlotte convention will emphasize that Obama is "committed to strengthening the economy from the middle class out," while "Republicans believe in a top down economy."
All eight national polls conducted last week showed the two candidates within two points of each other. Gallup's tracking poll showed Romney ahead by a point -- the closest race in Gallup's pre-convention polling since the company began following presidential races in 1936.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY On from Tampa: Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan open their general election campaign with a tour of swing states.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1090 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
First EDITION
Mystery solved: Eastwood makes sudden impact at RNC
BYLINE: Susan Davis, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 322 words
Hollywood heavyweight Clint Eastwood was expected to make an unscheduled appearance on the GOP convention stage Thursday night before Mitt Romney accepted the presidential nomination.
Eastwood, 82, endorsed Romney earlier this month at a campaign fundraiser in Idaho. His appearance was kept tightly under wraps by organizers who were promoting a "mystery speaker" in the days leading up.
Russ Schriefer, a Romney strategist, had rebuffed repeated efforts by the news media to confirm Eastwood's attendance because then "it wouldn't be a mystery speaker anymore." USA TODAY confirmed Eastwood's appearance. The source asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak ahead of Eastwood's speech.
Eastwood has said he first became aware of Romney when he was filming Mystic River in Massachusetts when Romney was governor.
"I said, God, this guy, he's too handsome to be governor, but he does look like he could be president," Eastwood said during the Idaho event. "'As the years have gone by, I began to think even more so about that."
Eastwood has been an active Republican his entire life, although he has at times supported Democratic candidates.
During the 1980s, Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel, Calif.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, a friend of Eastwood's who has joined him at Republican fundraisers, spoke of Eastwood's popularity in conservative circles.
"Nobody messes with Clint Eastwood," Boehner said. "He could make another half dozen movies before President Obama could get the unemployment rate below 8%. I'm glad he has Mitt's back."
The Academy Award winner drew headlines earlier this year when he was the voice of a high-profile Super Bowl ad for Chrysler declaring it was "half-time in America," which was perceived as being favorable to President Obama and the auto bailout his administration helped orchestrate. Eastwood pushed back and said he was not "politically affiliated" with the president.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By Jason O. Watson, US Presswire Eastwood: First became aware of Mitt Romney during the filming of Mystic River in Massachusetts, where Romney was governor.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1091 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
First EDITION
Romney leads unified GOP into battle;
Post-convention bounce looks likely, but can he build on it?
BYLINE: Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 1026 words
To Democrats who have denounced him as an untrustworthy flip-flopper and Republicans who once derided him as a "Massachusetts moderate," Mitt Romney finally defined himself this week -- as a cheerful conservative capable of rescuing the country from economic collapse.
Think Ronald Reagan meets Clint Eastwood, both of whom played key roles -- Reagan in a video -- Thursday night as the Republican National Convention came to a close.
After 5 years of campaigning for president, Willard Mitt Romney took his most important step toward telling the American people who he is and what he stands for.
In doing so, he appeared to unify a Republican Party that had doubted both his record and his resolve. It helped that he brought his new best friend, a rock-ribbed conservative running mate named Paul Davis Ryan, along for the ride.
If there are any misgivings remaining among the party faithful, their determination to run President Obama out of the White House in November may be incentive enough to join the Romney-Ryan bandwagon.
"Everybody's together on this," says former Virginia governor James Gilmore, president of the Free Congress Foundation, who ran for president as a conservative in 2008. "I'm not hearing any sense of rebellion at all against the Romney candidacy."
Maybe not -- but it took years for Romney to earn the embrace he finally received at the Tampa Bay Times Forum Thursday night. He was from the liberal state of Massachusetts. He had worked with Democrats, even on a state health insurance program that became the model for what he now calls "Obamacare."
And then there were the negative TV ads -- from his Republican primary opponents and especially from President Obama's campaign, which has pounded him mercilessly on both policy and personal fronts.
"Mitt's story has been told from one side, and it's been the Obama side," says Romney campaign pollster Neal Newhouse.
Meet Mitt Romney
As for telling his own story on the stump, "This is not a natural thing for him," Newhouse says.
So before Romney's acceptance speech, campaign organizers rolled out a rapid succession of speakers to attest to his character.
Bain Capital colleagues expressed wonder at his business acumen.
Former Olympians lauded his saving of the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Former Massachusetts officials recounted his record as governor.
His lieutenant governor noted how many women he hired.
His son, Craig, appealed to Hispanics -- in Spanish.
Perhaps most important in fleshing out the Romney story, friends from his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told touching stories of service and charity -- from helping a young David Oparowski write his will before dying of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, to helping new church member Pam Finlayson fold clothes.
"By the time Mitt left," she said, "not only did I feel welcome, my laundry was done!"
Romney, in prepared remarks, put it this way: "All the laws and legislation in the world will never heal this world like the loving hearts and arms of mothers and fathers. If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family -- and God's love -- this world would be a far more gentle and better place."
The Obama campaign has been quick to react to the good GOP vibes. The Democrats' "war room" here has held press conferences and sent out e-mails and tweets on a regular basis.
And on Thursday, Sen. John Kerry -- the party's 2004 nominee, who was subjected to a $23 million negative ad campaign by a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- sent out a fundraising appeal.
"I have one message burned into my memory for everyone who cares about the outcome of this year's presidential election: Respond quickly and powerfully to attacks from the other side," Kerry wrote.
Romney's three-day convention gives Democrats several reasons to be concerned:
The race, razor-close for months, now could see a Romney bounce. That should help in states where voters can vote weeks before Election Day, including Colorado, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina.
Three weeks of running with Ryan on the ticket -- and often by his side -- has made Romney a better campaigner. Tough talk in Tampa added to his image as a fighter, from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's "Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths" to former secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's "We cannot lead from behind."
Three days of choreographed speeches and videos here have gone a long way toward making Romney seem more down to earth -- not an easy task for someone worth an estimated $250 million. His wife, Ann, spoke of their love and "real marriage." Their five handsome sons made the rounds of cable TV shows. And most of their 18 grandchildren were expected on stage.
While Romney might not have Reagan's charm, the expected appearance of "mystery guest" Eastwood didn't hurt.
It was just six months ago that Eastwood was featured in a Super Bowl ad about the comeback at Chrysler, which some viewed as an endorsement of President Obama's auto bailout.
And while Romney still might not be voters' top choice as someone to have a beer with -- and not just because, as a Mormon, he doesn't drink -- his advisers say that won't matter.
"They're going to look for somebody they think can turn the country around and keep it from going over a cliff," political director Rich Beeson says.
'We want this debate'
Romney and Ryan leave Tampa not just on a campaign but a mission. They plan to talk about solutions, not hope and change. Even on the issue of Medicare, the health care program for some 50 million Americans that the Republicans want to partially privatize, Ryan said Wednesday: "We want this debate."
What's not clear is whether that debate will embolden voters or scare them. Democrats clearly hope it's the latter.
Republicans know they must be careful not to overplay their hand on such complex subjects as entitlements and the debt.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who as House Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s was immersed in the same issues Ryan touts today, likens the nearly $16 trillion debt to a tropical storm that's still 100 miles offshore.
"The public doesn't feel that crisis," Kasich says. "This election is about jobs."
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY A sea of support: Sign-waving delegates fill the floor at Thursday's final night of the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1092 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
First EDITION
The man we need at the helm;
ANOTHER VIEW
BYLINE: Mia Love
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 12A
LENGTH: 371 words
When thinking about any political poll, we should remember these wise words from Gov. Chris Christie's keynote convention address: "Real leaders do not follow polls. Real leaders change polls."
I would also offer a slight modification to a line from my own convention speech: We are not better off than we were four years ago, and no rhetoric, bumper sticker, campaign ad -- or poll -- can change that.
Much ink has been spilled in the news media over Mitt Romney's alleged "likability deficit" in polls. I have had the opportunity to interact with Gov. and Mrs. Romney on a number of occasions (their son Josh is my campaign chairman). I can personally attest that Gov. Romney is a very warm, engaging and, yes, likable person. This has been magnified by his wife's comments in Tampa about his background, record and character. As voters more fully discover the exemplary husband, father, businessman and leader Mitt Romney is, they will see he is the man we need at the helm in these troubled times.
The emphasis on "likability" misunderstands what this election is all about. After four years of anemic growth, record sustained unemployment, and unprecedented deficits and debt, Americans are not looking for a golf buddy or the man with whom they would most like to share a (root) beer. Americans are looking for a leader who can fix our economy, restore America's greatness and preserve the American dream.
Gov. Romney has maintained a consistent and substantial lead in the polls in questions regarding economic and budgetary stewardship. These are the issues that will decide this election.
More important than the polls, however, is the record. Barack Obama has had four years to turn our economy around and he has failed. Mitt Romney has turned around countless companies, the Winter Olympics and a floundering state. Americans want to get their nation's miraculous economic engine revving again at full speed, and there is only one candidate who has proved himself to be a mechanic.
The only poll that really matters is the one to be taken on Nov. 6 at the ballot box, and I am confident Mitt Romney will come out on top.
Mia Love, a Republican congressional candidate from Utah, addressed the GOP convention Tuesday.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: EDITORIAL
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1093 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
CHASE EDITION
Romney leads unified GOP into battle;
Post-convention bounce looks likely, but can he build on it?
BYLINE: Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 1037 words
To Democrats who have denounced him as an untrustworthy flip-flopper and Republicans who once derided him as a "Massachusetts moderate," Mitt Romney finally defined himself this week -- as a cheerful conservative capable of rescuing the country from economic collapse.
Think Ronald Reagan meets Clint Eastwood, both of whom played key roles -- Reagan in a video, Eastwood in person -- Thursday night as the Republican National Convention came to a close.
After 5 years of campaigning for president, Willard Mitt Romney took his most important step toward telling the American people who he is and what he stands for.
In doing so, he appeared to unify a Republican Party that had doubted both his record and his resolve. It helped that he brought his new best friend, a rock-ribbed conservative running mate named Paul Davis Ryan, along for the ride.
If there are any misgivings remaining among the party faithful, their determination to run President Obama out of the White House in November may be incentive enough to join the Romney-Ryan bandwagon.
"Everybody's together on this," says former Virginia governor James Gilmore, president of the Free Congress Foundation, who ran for president as a conservative in 2008. "I'm not hearing any sense of rebellion at all against the Romney candidacy."
Maybe not -- but it took years for Romney to earn the embrace he finally received at the Tampa Bay Times Forum Thursday night. He was from the liberal state of Massachusetts. He had worked with Democrats, even on a state health insurance program that became the model for what he now calls "Obamacare."
And then there were the negative TV ads -- from his Republican primary opponents and especially from President Obama's campaign, which has pounded him mercilessly on both policy and personal fronts.
Meet Mitt Romney
"Mitt's story has been told from one side, and it's been the Obama side," says Romney campaign pollster Neal Newhouse.
As for telling his own story on the stump, "This is not a natural thing for him," Newhouse says.
So before Romney's acceptance speech, campaign organizers rolled out a rapid succession of speakers to attest to his character.
Bain Capital colleagues expressed wonder at his business acumen. Former Olympians lauded his saving of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Former Massachusetts officials recounted his record as governor. His lieutenant governor noted how many women he hired. His son, Craig, appealed to Hispanics -- in Spanish.
Perhaps most important in fleshing out the Romney story, friends from his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told touching stories of service and charity -- from helping a young David Oparowski write his will before dying of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, to helping new church member Pam Finlayson fold clothes.
"By the time Mitt left," she said, "not only did I feel welcome, my laundry was done!"
Romney, in prepared remarks, put it this way: "All the laws and legislation in the world will never heal this world like the loving hearts and arms of mothers and fathers. If every child could drift to sleep feeling wrapped in the love of their family -- and God's love -- this world would be a far more gentle and better place."
The Obama campaign has been quick to react to the good GOP vibes. The Democrats' "war room" here has held press conferences and sent out e-mails and tweets on a regular basis.
And on Thursday, Sen. John Kerry -- the party's 2004 nominee, who was subjected to a $23 million negative ad campaign by a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- sent out a fundraising appeal. "I have one message burned into my memory for everyone who cares about the outcome of this year's presidential election: Respond quickly and powerfully to attacks from the other side," he wrote.
Romney's three-day convention gives Democrats several reasons to be concerned:
The race, razor-close for months, now could see a Romney bounce. That should help in states where voters can vote weeks before Election Day, including Colorado, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina.
Three weeks of running with Ryan on the ticket -- and often by his side -- has made Romney a better campaigner. Tough talk in Tampa added to his image as a fighter, from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's "Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths" to former secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's "We cannot lead from behind."
Three days of choreographed speeches and videos here have gone a long way toward making Romney seem more down to earth -- not an easy task for someone worth an estimated $250 million. His wife, Ann, spoke of their love and "real marriage." Their five handsome sons made the rounds of cable TV shows.
While Romney might not have Reagan's charm, the appearance of "mystery guest" Eastwood didn't hurt. It was just six months ago that Eastwood was featured in a Super Bowl ad about the comeback at Chrysler, which some viewed as an endorsement of President Obama.
"When somebody does not do the job, we've got to let them go," Eastwood said before issuing his trademark line: "Make my day!"
And while Romney still might not be voters' top choice as someone to have a beer with -- and not just because, as a Mormon, he doesn't drink -- his advisers say that won't matter.
"They're going to look for somebody they think can turn the country around and keep it from going over a cliff," political director Rich Beeson says.
'We want this debate'
Romney and Ryan leave Tampa not just on a campaign but a mission. They plan to talk about solutions, not hope and change. Even on the issue of Medicare, the health care program for some 50 million Americans that the Republicans want to partially privatize, Ryan said Wednesday: "We want this debate."
What's not clear is whether that debate will embolden voters or scare them. Democrats clearly hope it's the latter.
Republicans know they must be careful not to overplay their hand on such complex subjects as entitlements and the debt.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who as House Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s was immersed in the same issues Ryan touts today, likens the nearly $16 trillion debt to a tropical storm that's still 100 miles offshore.
"The public doesn't feel that crisis," Kasich says. "This election is about jobs."
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By Robert Deutsch, USA TODAY Mitt's moment: Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney greets a throng of sign-waving supporters on Thursday night.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1094 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
CHASE EDITION
The man we need at the helm;
ANOTHER VIEW
BYLINE: Mia Love
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 12A
LENGTH: 371 words
When thinking about any political poll, we should remember these wise words from Gov. Chris Christie's keynote convention address: "Real leaders do not follow polls. Real leaders change polls."
I would also offer a slight modification to a line from my own convention speech: We are not better off than we were four years ago, and no rhetoric, bumper sticker, campaign ad -- or poll -- can change that.
Much ink has been spilled in the news media over Mitt Romney's alleged "likability deficit" in polls. I have had the opportunity to interact with Gov. and Mrs. Romney on a number of occasions (their son Josh is my campaign chairman). I can personally attest that Gov. Romney is a very warm, engaging and, yes, likable person. This has been magnified by his wife's comments in Tampa about his background, record and character. As voters more fully discover the exemplary husband, father, businessman and leader Mitt Romney is, they will see he is the man we need at the helm in these troubled times.
The emphasis on "likability" misunderstands what this election is all about. After four years of anemic growth, record sustained unemployment, and unprecedented deficits and debt, Americans are not looking for a golf buddy or the man with whom they would most like to share a (root) beer. Americans are looking for a leader who can fix our economy, restore America's greatness and preserve the American dream.
Gov. Romney has maintained a consistent and substantial lead in the polls in questions regarding economic and budgetary stewardship. These are the issues that will decide this election.
More important than the polls, however, is the record. Barack Obama has had four years to turn our economy around and he has failed. Mitt Romney has turned around countless companies, the Winter Olympics and a floundering state. Americans want to get their nation's miraculous economic engine revving again at full speed, and there is only one candidate who has proved himself to be a mechanic.
The only poll that really matters is the one to be taken on Nov. 6 at the ballot box, and I am confident Mitt Romney will come out on top.
Mia Love, a Republican congressional candidate from Utah, addressed the GOP convention Tuesday.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: EDITORIAL
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1095 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
CHASE EDITION
'We deserve better';
Romney, Ryan take message on tour
BYLINE: Gregory Korte, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 445 words
Launched from the Republican National Convention with the rallying cry "We deserve better," Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan open their general election campaign today with their first tour of key swing states as the party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees.
Romney's acceptance of the nomination Thursday night came with a prepared speech that blamed President Obama for four years of "disappointment and division."
His moment on the platform caps a quest his father, Michigan governor George Romney, abandoned in 1968 and the son picked up while serving as Massachusetts governor in 2007.
From the same podium where Republicans spent three days attacking Obama, mocking his experience and comparing him to one-term President Jimmy Carter, Romney's remarks softened the tone to one of disillusionment.
He said he wished President Obama succeeded.
"Hope and change had a powerful appeal," Romney said. "But tonight I'd ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama? You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had, was the day you voted for him."
A column of character witnesses told personal stories about Romney.
Pat Oparowski, whose son Romney befriended before his death from lymphoma, said, "How many men do you know would take the time out of their busy lives to visit a terminally ill 14-year-old and help him settle his affairs?"
Grant Bennett, who took over for Romney as a Mormon pastor, said "Week after week and year after year, he met with those seeking help with the burdens of real life."
Then the convention took a comedic twist, with actor Clint Eastwood endorsing Romney by ad-libbing an imagined debate with an empty chair representing Obama.
Romney and Ryan will tour Florida, Virginia and Ohio over the next two days.
Obama will visit swing states Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia, this weekend, then head to Charlotte for the Democratic convention, which begins Tuesday. He is still working on his convention speech, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, but he expected to talk about growing the economy "from the middle out."
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said the Charlotte convention will emphasize that Obama is "committed to strengthening the economy from the middle class out."
All eight national polls conducted last week showed the two candidates within two points of each other. Gallup's tracking poll showed Romney ahead by a point -- the closest race in Gallup's pre-convention polling since the company began following presidential races in 1936.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY On from Tampa: Mitt Romney opens his general election campaign with a tour of swing states.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1096 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
CA CHASE EDITION
Romney leads unified GOP into battle;
Post-convention bounce looks likely, but can he build on it?
BYLINE: Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 1033 words
To Democrats who have denounced him as an untrustworthy flip-flopper and Republicans who once derided him as a "Massachusetts moderate," Mitt Romney finally defined himself this week -- as a cheerful conservative capable of rescuing the country from economic collapse.
Think Ronald Reagan meets Clint Eastwood, both of whom played key roles -- Reagan in a video, Eastwood in person -- as the Republican National Convention came to a close Thursday.
After 5 years of campaigning for president, Willard Mitt Romney took his most important step toward telling the American people who he is and what he stands for.
In doing so, he appeared to unify a Republican Party that had doubted both his record and his resolve. It helped that he brought his new best friend, a rock-ribbed conservative running mate named Paul Davis Ryan, along for the ride.
If there are any misgivings remaining among the party faithful, their determination to run President Obama out of the White House in November may be incentive enough to join the Romney-Ryan bandwagon.
"Everybody's together on this," says former Virginia governor James Gilmore, president of the Free Congress Foundation, who ran for president as a conservative in 2008. "I'm not hearing any sense of rebellion at all against the Romney candidacy."
Maybe not -- but it took years for Romney to earn the embrace he finally received at the Tampa Bay Times Forum Thursday night. He was from the liberal state of Massachusetts. He had worked with Democrats, even on a state health insurance program that became the model for what he now calls "Obamacare."
And then there were the negative TV ads -- from his Republican primary opponents and especially from President Obama's campaign, which has pounded him mercilessly on both policy and personal fronts.
Meet Mitt Romney
"Mitt's story has been told from one side, and it's been the Obama side," says Romney campaign pollster Neal Newhouse.
As for telling his own story on the stump, "This is not a natural thing for him," Newhouse says.
So before Romney's acceptance speech, campaign organizers rolled out a rapid succession of speakers to attest to his character.
Bain Capital colleagues expressed wonder at his business acumen. Former Olympians lauded his saving of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Former Massachusetts officials recounted his record as governor. His lieutenant governor noted how many women he hired.
Perhaps most important in fleshing out the Romney story, friends from his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints told stories of service and charity, from helping young David Oparowski write his will before he died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to helping church member Pam Finlayson fold clothes. "By the time Mitt left," she said, "not only did I feel welcome, my laundry was done!"
Romney, who entered the hall from the back, shaking hands and hugging delegates, spoke at length about his life story. That left little time to criticize Obama. But he did say this: "In America, we celebrate success. We don't apologize for success."
And this: "You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him."
The Obama campaign has been quick to react to the good GOP vibes. The Democrats' "war room" here has held press conferences and sent out e-mails and tweets on a regular basis.
On Thursday, Sen. John Kerry -- the party's 2004 nominee, who was subjected to a $23 million negative ad campaign by a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- sent out a fundraising appeal. "I have one message burned into my memory for everyone who cares about the outcome of this year's presidential election: Respond quickly and powerfully to attacks from the other side," he wrote.
Romney's three-day convention gives Democrats several reasons to be concerned:
The race, razor-close for months, now could see a Romney bounce. That should help in states where voters can vote weeks before Election Day, including Colorado, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina.
Three weeks of running with Ryan on the ticket -- and often by his side -- has made Romney a better campaigner. Tough talk in Tampa added to his image as a fighter, from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's "Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths" to former secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's "We cannot lead from behind."
Three days of choreographed speeches and videos here have gone a long way toward making Romney seem more down to earth -- not an easy task for someone worth an estimated $250 million. His wife, Ann, spoke of their love and "real marriage." Their five handsome sons made the rounds of cable TV shows.
While Romney might not have Reagan's charm, the appearance of Eastwood didn't hurt. It was just six months ago that Eastwood was featured in a Super Bowl ad about the comeback at Chrysler, which some viewed as an endorsement of President Obama.
"When somebody does not do the job, we've got to let them go," Eastwood said before issuing his trademark line: "Make my day!"
And while Romney still might not be voters' top choice as someone to have a beer with -- and not just because, as a Mormon, he doesn't drink -- his advisers say that won't matter.
"They're going to look for somebody they think can turn the country around and keep it from going over a cliff," political director Rich Beeson says.
'We want this debate'
Romney and Ryan leave Tampa not just on a campaign but a mission. They plan to talk about solutions, not hope and change. Even on the issue of Medicare, the health care program for some 50 million Americans that the Republicans want to partially privatize, Ryan said Wednesday: "We want this debate."
What's not clear is whether that debate will embolden voters or scare them. Democrats clearly hope it's the latter.
Republicans know they must be careful not to overplay their hand on such complex subjects as entitlements and the debt.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who as House Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s was immersed in the same issues Ryan touts today, likens the nearly $16 trillion debt to a tropical storm that's still 100 miles offshore.
"The public doesn't feel that crisis," Kasich says. "This election is about jobs."
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By Robert Deutsch, USA TODAY Mitt's moment: Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney greets a throng of sign-waving supporters Thursday night.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1097 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
CA CHASE EDITION
'We deserve better';
Romney, Ryan take message on tour
BYLINE: Gregory Korte, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 454 words
Launched from the Republican National Convention with the rallying cry "We deserve better," Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan open their general election campaign today with their first tour of key swing states as the party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees.
Romney's acceptance of the nomination Thursday night came with a forcefully delivered 37-minute speech that blamed President Obama for four years of "disappointment and division."
His moment on the platform caps a quest his father, Michigan governor George Romney, abandoned in 1968 and the son picked up while serving as Massachusetts governor in 2007.
From the same podium where Republicans spent three days attacking Obama, mocking his experience and comparing him to one-term President Jimmy Carter, Romney's remarks softened the tone to one of disillusionment.
He said he wished President Obama succeeded.
"Hope and change had a powerful appeal," Romney said. "But tonight I'd ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama? You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had, was the day you voted for him."
Romney followed a column of character witnesses who told often personal stories about him as a governor, Mormon pastor and businessman.
Pat Oparowski, whose son Romney befriended before his death from lymphoma, said, "How many men do you know would take the time out of their busy lives to visit a terminally ill 14-year-old and help him settle his affairs?"
Grant Bennett, who took over for Romney as a Mormon pastor, said "Week after week and year after year, he met with those seeking help with the burdens of real life."
Then the convention took a comedic twist, with actor Clint Eastwood endorsing Romney by ad-libbing an imagined debate with an empty chair representing Obama.
Romney and Ryan will tour Florida, Virginia and Ohio over the next two days.
Obama will visit swing states Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia this weekend, then Charlotte for the Democratic convention, which begins Tuesday. He is working on his convention speech, White House press secretary Jay Carney said.
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said the Charlotte convention will emphasize that Obama is "committed to strengthening the economy from the middle class out," while "Republicans believe in a top down economy."
All eight national polls conducted last week showed the two candidates within two points of each other. Gallup's tracking poll showed Romney ahead by a point -- the closest race in Gallup's pre-convention polling since the company began following presidential races in 1936.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY On from Tampa: Mitt Romney opens his general election campaign with a tour of swing states.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1098 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
Mystery guest Eastwood makes sudden impact with GOP
BYLINE: Susan Davis, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 327 words
Hollywood heavyweight Clint Eastwood made a scene-stealing appearance on the GOP convention stage before a welcoming audience Thursday night ahead of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech for his party's presidential nomination.
"I think it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem," said Eastwood, 82, who endorsed Romney this month at a fundraiser in Idaho. "When someone does not do the job, you have got to let them go."
In an unusual speech for what is typically a highly scripted affair, Eastwood talked to an empty chair, which he addressed as if President Obama was sitting there. At one point Eastwood suggested the imaginary president had told him to say derogatory things. "What do you want me to tell Romney? I can't tell him to do that. I can't tell him to do that to himself," he said.
He criticized Vice President Biden as "kind of a grin with a body behind it" and sarcastically described him as "the intellect of the Democratic Party."
Following his remarks, the Romney campaign issued a statement defending the movie star. "Judging an American icon like Clint Eastwood through a typical political lens doesn't work. His ad libbing was a break from all the political speeches, and the crowd enjoyed it."
Reactions to Eastwood's speech overwhelmed social media. "Clint Eastwood became (a) huge star as a man of few words," tweeted NBC News veteran Tom Brokaw, an Eastwood friend. "As a surprise guest on the Tampa stage he had too many words."
Former congressman Joe Scarborough, the host of MSNBC's Morning Joe said Romney's big night was "sidetracked" by Eastwood. By 11 p.m. ET, a parody Twitter account @InvisibleObama had more than 20,000 followers.
While the remarks appeared awkward on television because it was unclear whom Eastwood was addressing, he was warmly welcomed in the hall. He closed by saying, "Go ahead ..." to which the hall chanted, "Make my day!" in reference to his famous one-liner from the film Dirty Harry.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY "Time for somebody else": Clint Eastwood backs Romney bid.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1099 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
CHASE EDITION
Mystery guest Eastwood says time to let Obama go
BYLINE: Susan Davis, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 322 words
Hollywood heavyweight Clint Eastwood made a surprise appearance on the GOP convention stage before a welcoming audience Thursday night ahead of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech for his party's presidential nomination.
"I think it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem," said Eastwood, 82, who already endorsed Romney this month at a campaign fundraiser in Idaho. "When someone does not do the job, you have got to let them go."
Eastwood's remarks were rambling at times and critical of President Obama and Vice President Biden, whom he described as "a kind of grin with a body behind it."
Eastwood has said he first became aware of Romney during the filming of Mystic River in Massachusetts, when Romney was governor.
"I said, 'God, this guy, he's too handsome to be governor, but he does look like he could be president,'" Eastwood said during the Idaho event. "As the years have gone by, I began to think even more so about that."
Eastwood has been an active Republican his entire adult life, although he has at times supported Democratic candidates and maintains liberal social views and supports abortion rights and gay marriage. During the 1980s, Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel, Calif.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, a friend of Eastwood's who has joined him at Republican fundraisers, spoke of Eastwood's popularity in conservative circles.
"Nobody messes with Clint Eastwood," Boehner said. "He could make another half dozen movies before President Obama could get the unemployment rate below 8%. I'm glad he has Mitt's back."
The Academy Award winner drew headlines earlier this year when he was the voice of a high-profile Super Bowl ad for Chrysler declaring it was "halftime in America," which was perceived as being favorable to President Obama and the auto bailout his administration helped orchestrate. Eastwood pushed back and said he was not "politically affiliated" with the president.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY "Time for somebody else": Clint Eastwood backs Romney bid.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1100 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
CA CHASE EDITION
Mystery guest Eastwood says time to let Obama go
BYLINE: Susan Davis, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 323 words
Hollywood heavyweight Clint Eastwood made a scene-stealing appearance on the GOP convention stage before a welcoming audience Thursday night ahead of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech for his party's presidential nomination.
"I think it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem," said Eastwood, 82, who endorsed Romney this month at a fundraiser in Idaho. "When someone does not do the job, you have got to let them go."
In an unusual speech for what is typically a scripted affair, Eastwood talked to an empty chair, which he addressed as if President Obama were sitting on the stage. At one point, Eastwood suggested the imaginary president had told him to curse at Romney. He criticized Vice President Biden as "a kind of grin with a body behind it."
Reactions to Eastwood's speech overwhelmed social media. "Clint Eastwood became (a) huge star as a man of few words," tweeted NBC News veteran Tom Brokaw, an Eastwood friend. "As a surprise guest on the Tampa stage he had too many words."
Former congressman Joe Scarborough, the host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, said Romney's big night was "sidetracked" by Eastwood. On Twitter, a parody account @InvisibleObama had amassed more than 10,000 followers before Romney took the stage.
While the remarks appeared awkward on television because it was unclear whom Eastwood was addressing, he was warmly welcomed in the hall by the delegates. He closed out his remarks by saying, "Go ahead ..." to which the hall chanted, "Make my day!" in reference to his famous one-liner from the film Dirty Harry.
Eastwood has been an active Republican, but he has supported Democratic candidates. During the 1980s, Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel, Calif.
The Academy Award winner drew headlines this year when he was the voice of a Super Bowl ad for Chrysler declaring it was "halftime in America," which was perceived as being favorable to President Obama and the auto bailout.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY "Time for somebody else": Clint Eastwood backs Romney bid.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1101 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 31, 2012 Friday
CA CHASE EDITION
Mystery guest Eastwood says time to let Obama go
BYLINE: Susan Davis, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 323 words
Hollywood heavyweight Clint Eastwood made a scene-stealing appearance on the GOP convention stage before a welcoming audience Thursday night ahead of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech for his party's presidential nomination.
"I think it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem," said Eastwood, 82, who endorsed Romney this month at a fundraiser in Idaho. "When someone does not do the job, you have got to let them go."
In an unusual speech for what is typically a scripted affair, Eastwood talked to an empty chair, which he addressed as if President Obama were sitting on the stage. At one point, Eastwood suggested the imaginary president had told him to curse at Romney. He criticized Vice President Biden as "a kind of grin with a body behind it."
Reactions to Eastwood's speech overwhelmed social media. "Clint Eastwood became (a) huge star as a man of few words," tweeted NBC News veteran Tom Brokaw, an Eastwood friend. "As a surprise guest on the Tampa stage he had too many words."
Former congressman Joe Scarborough, the host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, said Romney's big night was "sidetracked" by Eastwood. On Twitter, a parody account @InvisibleObama had amassed more than 10,000 followers before Romney took the stage.
While the remarks appeared awkward on television because it was unclear whom Eastwood was addressing, he was warmly welcomed in the hall by the delegates. He closed out his remarks by saying, "Go ahead ..." to which the hall chanted, "Make my day!" in reference to his famous one-liner from the film Dirty Harry.
Eastwood has been an active Republican, but he has supported Democratic candidates. During the 1980s, Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel, Calif.
The Academy Award winner drew headlines this year when he was the voice of a Super Bowl ad for Chrysler declaring it was "halftime in America," which was perceived as being favorable to President Obama and the auto bailout.
LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY "Time for somebody else": Clint Eastwood backs Romney bid.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: POLITICS
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1102 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 31, 2012 Friday 11:02 PM EST
Judge rules against law limiting early voting in Ohio;
In an outcome Democrats were hoping for, a judge has ruled that all Ohio voters can cast ballots in person during the 72 hours before Election Day.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 595 words
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Could Rehbergs comments about lobbying hurt in Montana Senate race?
Candidates strive to move from Congress to the governors mansion
Is Mitt Romney right about the countrys economic pessimism?
The most cringe-worthy lines of the 2012 GOP convention (that didnt involve Clint Eastwood)
Why 2008 Obama is Mitt Romneys best friend
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* In a victory for Democrats, a federal judgehas ruled that all Ohio voters may vote in person during the final three days leading up to Election Day. Republican lawmakers had previouslyhelped pass a law limiting in-person votingduring the final 72 hoursto militarypersonnel. Democrats challenged that rule. Now, the state's Republican attorney general says he will appeal the Fridaydecision.
*PresidentObama will visit Louisiana on Monday to to take stock of the recovery effort following theimpact ofHurricane Issac. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has called Mitt Romney's Friday trip to Louisiana to review storm damagea "hypocrisy" because a House GOP plan would have gutted disaster relief. Romney adviser Stuart Stevens responded: "The thought never occurred to me that it would be inappropriate to come and see people."
* Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) is up with a new TV ad attacking Rep. Shelley Berkley (D) for voting for Medicare cuts. The adreferences several Berkley votes,including a vote for Obama's health care law, which rolled back Medicare payments to hospitals and insurers but did not cut benefits.
* Former senator George Allen's (R) Virginia Senate campaign has canceled its ad reservation for next week.Allen campaign adviser Dan Allen said it was part of the constant adjustments being made to our ad schedule. Democrats, on the other hand, speculate the move is a consequence of afundraisingdeficit to formerDemocraticNational Committee chairman Tim Kaine.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Embattled Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is back on the campaign trail. He appeared Thursday at the Northwest Missouri state fair and offered the GOPpresidentialticket some praise it would probably rather do without. "I totally support the Ryan, Romney ticket," Akin said. "I'm completely on board. I think they're great. I've worked with Paul Ryan. He is excellent. Best guy on the budget of anyone in the Congress that I know of. And I think they're fantastic and I am looking forward to working with them."
*Vice President Biden was the latest high-profile Democrat to criticize Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) GOP convention remarks blaming Obama for the closure of a GM plant that was slated to be shuttered before thepresidenttook office."What he didn't tell you is the plant in Janesville actually closed when President Bush was still in office," Bidensaid at a campaign stop in Lordstown, Ohio.
* ADemocraticpoll conducted forHouse Majority PAC/SEIU/AFSCME/Friends of Democracy shows the race between freshman Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.) and former Democratic congressman Rick Nolan is about even, with Nolan at 47 percent and Cravaack at 44 percent.
* Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) says Romney's convention speech left him skeptical. "I remain very, very skeptical of hearing anything that will change the course of history. We have a debt problem. We have a spending problem, but how many things did he list to cut? hesaid.
THE FIX MIX:
Happy Friday!
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1103 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 31, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Romney seizes moment, rips Obama
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 447 words
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum Et harumd und lookum like Greek to me, dereud facilis est er expedit distinct. Nam liber te conscient to factor tum poen legum odioque civiuda. Et tam neque pecun modut est neque nonor et imper ned libidig met, consecteLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum Et harumd und lookum like Greek to me, dereud facilis est er expedit distinct. Nam liber te conscient to factor tum poen legum odioque civiuda. Et tam neque pecun modut est neque nonor et imper ned libidig met, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed ut labore et dolore magna aliquam makes one wonder who would ever read this stuff? Bis nostrud exercitation ullam mmodo consequet. Duis aute in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.tur adipiscing elit, sed ut labore et dolore magna aliquam makes one wonder who would ever read this stuff? Bis nostrud exercitation ullam mmodo consequet. Duis aute in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum Et harumd und lookum like Greek to me, dereud facilis est er expedit distinct. Nam liber te conscient to factor tum poen legum odioque civiuda. Et tam neque pecun modut est neque nonor et imper ned libidig met, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed ut labore et dolore magna aliquam makes one wonder who would ever read this stuff? Bis nostrud exercitation ullam mmodo consequet. Duis aute in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1104 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 31, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Fact checkers face quick push-back on Ryan speech Fact checkers face quick push-backon Ryan speech
BYLINE: Rosalind S. Helderman
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2760 words
TAMPA - Did Paul Ryan bend the truth?
The verdict, rendered by a slew of media fact checkers, was immediate and unequivocal: In his first major speech before the American people, the Republican vice presidential nominee repeatedly left out key facts, ignored context and was blind to his own hypocrisy.
The speech contained "several false and misleading statements," declared FactCheck.org, run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. The speech was "not without inaccuracies," asserted PolitiFact, the Pulitzer-winning project of the Tampa Bay Times. But the push-back from the Romney campaign, and Republicans at large, was just as quick and just as self-assured. "Lemmings to their own death," read the headline of a column by Erick Erickson on the conservative Web site RedState.com. "The fact checkers are not checking facts, they are spinning," he wrote.
Jon Cassidy, writing on the Web site Human Events, said one fact-checking outfit declares conservatives inaccurate three times as often as it does liberals. "You might reasonably conclude that PolitiFact is biased," he wrote.
The Ryan experience, which consumed the Republican National Convention and the broader political world Thursday, was a hyper-fast example of a pattern that has emerged again and again during this campaign, as fact-checking operations created and institutionalized during the 2004 and 2008 races have become key referees in the fight between Mitt Romney and President Obama.
Fact-checker findings, including those by The Washington Post's project, figure prominently in campaign ads. The unique rating systems used by these organizations - including the trademarked Truth-O-Meter and Pinocchios - have become part of the political vernacular. In today's rapidly evolving media environment, fact-check requests are a top priority for campaign media shops, which have designated specific advisers to deal with the questions.Now, the fact checkers themselves are increasingly under fire, as the campaigns and their allies try to manage the fallout from their verdicts.
Campaigns take issue
This week, Romney's campaign faced questions about its repeated accusation that Obama ended welfare work requirements - even after fact checkers decreed that assertion false. Romney pollster Neil Newhouse turned the challenge back on the fact checkers, saying they bring their own "thoughts and beliefs" to the process.
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers," Newhouse said.
The Obama campaign, too, has targeted the fact checkers. They sent a public letter of complaint to FactCheck.org after the group concluded that it was unfair to blame Romney for actions taken by his onetime company, Bain Capital, after his day-to-day involvement with it ended in 1998. The Post's Fact Checker reached the same conclusion.
Last year, when PolitiFact awarded its "lie of the year" prize to the Democratic accusation that Republicans who supported the Ryan budget had voted to end Medicare, it triggered one of the fiercest waves of push-back to date. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman slammed the service in a piece headlined "PolitiFact, R.I.P." "I think this is a classic tactic in a new media time. They're relying on our work when it helps them and ignoring or pushing back on our work when it hurts them," said Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact, which employs six reporters and editors for national news and 30 additional workers for regional news.
Although news organizations have long sought to truth-squad political statements, the creation of special fact-checking units is a new development. Eager to appeal to consumers tired of he-said-she-said coverage, and in a time when news consumption has grown increasingly polarized, organizations are now more amenable to simple declarations of fact (and fiction) - no easy task during an election season.
FactCheck.org was founded in 2003 to make rulings about statements in the 2004 presidential race. By November 2004, the site was getting more than 200,000 page views a day. PolitiFact was founded in the run-up to the 2008 election, as was The Post's Fact Checker. The latter returned, written by Glenn Kessler, in January 2011. The goal, say their authors, is to provide voters with an easy way to understand facts amid the daily din of partisan combat. Ryan defends line of attack For Ryan, a leading issue this week is whether he was fair to blame Obama for the shuttering of a General Motors plant in his home town of Janesville, Wis.
"Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you . . . this plant will be here for another 100 years.' That's what he said in 2008," Ryan said in his convention speech. "Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day."
After Ryan spoke, the Web site PolitiFact Wisconsin - a partnership between PolitiFact and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - rated the assertion "false."
The site noted that "the plant closed while [President George W.] Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated."
Kessler called Ryan's statement "technically correct but phrased in a way that might leave listeners with the wrong impression" and awarded it two Pinocchios.
Conservatives said it was unfair to call the statement inaccurate. Although the plant closed in 2009, people had voted for Obama on the premise that he had the power to reopen it. Former New Hampshire governor John E. Sununu, a top Romney surrogate, said that "the sentence Paul Ryan used was correct" because Obama could have "done something to get it so that it would stay open for 100 years."
"So, with all due respect to the Obama people and the fact checkers, they're wrong," Sununu said. "I find it amazing that fact checkers themselves need fact-checking."
Ryan, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, defended his remarks. "I'm not saying it was his decision," the Wisconsin Republican said. "I'm saying he came and made these promises, makes these commitments, sells people on the notion that he's going to do all these great achievements, and then none of them occur."
Although Romney aides insist that they do not look to fact checkers to decide whether a line of attack is fair, Romney suggested this month that Obama should do exactly that.
"You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them," Romney said, blasting an ad by an Obama super PAC that blamed the Republican for the cancer death of the wife of a man who lost health insurance after Bain Capital closed his workplace.
On his Web site this week, Kessler posted a Romney news release describing the "Obama Campaign's Top Ten Lies & Exaggerations," which draws heavily from the work of fact checkers - including seven references to his own column, nine to FactCheck.org and four to PolitiFact.
"This week, it's the Republicans' week. They're going to be very annoyed and pushy over the things we say," Kessler said. "I fully anticipate next week at the Democratic convention that the tables will be turned."
The campaigns may publicly take issue with the fact checkers, but journalists who run the projects say the political camps respond professionally to questions about statements made by their candidates. The Obama campaign has tasked one media officer to deal exclusively with fact checker s' questions, and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom often personally handles requests.
But Brooks Jackson, executive director of FactCheck.org, said he fears that the campaigns have come to see running afoul of fact checkers as something of a badge of honor.
And the fact checkers say they don't see their role as designed to change the behavior of politicians - or to convince the public of a particular point of view in any given debate. Their goal, they say, is to provide more information for voters to do with as they see fit.
"I don't know if we're winning hearts and minds," Adair said. "I know we're succeeding in informing people."
heldermanr@washpost.com
David A. Fahrenthold and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.
TAMPA - Did Paul Ryan bend the truth?
The verdict, rendered by a slew of media fact checkers, was immediate and unequivocal: In his first major speech before the American people, the Republican vice presidential nominee repeatedly left out key facts, ignored context and was blind to his own hypocrisy.
The speech contained "several false and misleading statements," declared FactCheck.org, run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. The speech was "not without inaccuracies," asserted PolitiFact, the Pulitzer-winning project of the Tampa Bay Times. But the push-back from the Romney campaign, and Republicans at large, was just as quick and just as self-assured. "Lemmings to their own death," read the headline of a column by Erick Erickson on the conservative Web site RedState.com. "The fact checkers are not checking facts, they are spinning," he wrote.
Jon Cassidy, writing on the Web site Human Events, said one fact-checking outfit declares conservatives inaccurate three times as often as it does liberals. "You might reasonably conclude that PolitiFact is biased," he wrote.
The Ryan experience, which consumed the Republican National Convention and the broader political world Thursday, was a hyper-fast example of a pattern that has emerged again and again during this campaign, as fact-checking operations created and institutionalized during the 2004 and 2008 races have become key referees in the fight between Mitt Romney and President Obama.
Fact-checker findings, including those by The Washington Post's project, figure prominently in campaign ads. The unique rating systems used by these organizations - including the trademarked Truth-O-Meter and Pinocchios - have become part of the political vernacular. In today's rapidly evolving media environment, fact-check requests are a top priority for campaign media shops, which have designated specific advisers to deal with the questions.Now, the fact checkers themselves are increasingly under fire, as the campaigns and their allies try to manage the fallout from their verdicts.
Campaigns push back
This week, Romney's campaign faced questions about its repeated accusation that Obama ended welfare work requirements - even after fact checkers decreed that assertion false. Romney pollster Neil Newhouse turned the challenge back on the fact checkers, saying they bring their own "thoughts and beliefs" to the process.
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers," Newhouse said.
The Obama campaign, too, has targeted the fact checkers. They sent a public letter of complaint to FactCheck.org after the group concluded that it was unfair to blame Romney for actions taken by his onetime company, Bain Capital, after his day-to-day involvement with it ended in 1998. The Post's Fact Checker reached the same conclusion.
Last year, when PolitiFact awarded its "lie of the year" prize to the Democratic accusation that Republicans who supported the Ryan budget had voted to end Medicare, it triggered one of the fiercest waves of push-back to date. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman slammed the service in a piece headlined "PolitiFact, R.I.P." "I think this is a classic tactic in a new media time. They're relying on our work when it helps them and ignoring or pushing back on our work when it hurts them," said Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact, which employs six reporters and editors for national news and 30 additional workers for regional news.
Although news organizations have long sought to truth-squad political statements, the creation of special fact-checking units is a new development. Eager to appeal to consumers tired of he-said-she-said coverage, and in a time when news consumption has grown increasingly polarized, organizations are now more amenable to simple declarations of fact (and fiction) - no easy task during an election season.
FactCheck.org was founded in 2003 to make rulings about statements in the 2004 presidential race. By November 2004, the site was getting more than 200,000 page views a day. PolitiFact was founded in the run-up to the 2008 election, as was The Post's Fact Checker. The latter returned, written by Glenn Kessler, in January 2011. The goal, say their authors, is to provide voters with an easy way to understand facts amid the daily din of partisan combat. Ryan defends line of attack For Ryan, a leading issue this week is whether he was fair to blame Obama for the shuttering of a General Motors plant in his home town of Janesville, Wis.
"Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you . . . this plant will be here for another 100 years.' That's what he said in 2008," Ryan said in his convention speech. "Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day."
After Ryan spoke, the Web site PolitiFact Wisconsin - a partnership between PolitiFact and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - rated the assertion "false."
The site noted that "the plant closed while [President George W.] Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated."
Kessler called Ryan's statement "technically correct but phrased in a way that might leave listeners with the wrong impression" and awarded it two Pinocchios.
Conservatives said it was unfair to call the statement inaccurate. Although the plant closed in 2009, people had voted for Obama on the premise that he had the power to reopen it. Former New Hampshire governor John E. Sununu, a top Romney surrogate, said that "the sentence Paul Ryan used was correct" because Obama could have "done something to get it so that it would stay open for 100 years."
"So, with all due respect to the Obama people and the fact checkers, they're wrong," Sununu said. "I find it amazing that fact checkers themselves need fact-checking."
Ryan, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, defended his remarks. "I'm not saying it was his decision," the Wisconsin Republican said. "I'm saying he came and made these promises, makes these commitments, sells people on the notion that he's going to do all these great achievements, and then none of them occur."
Although Romney aides insist that they do not look to fact checkers to decide whether a line of attack is fair, Romney suggested this month that Obama should do exactly that.
"You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them," Romney said, blasting an ad by an Obama super PAC that blamed the Republican for the cancer death of the wife of a man who lost health insurance after Bain Capital closed his workplace.
On his Web site this week, Kessler posted a Romney news release describing the "Obama Campaign's Top Ten Lies & Exaggerations," which draws heavily from the work of fact checkers - including seven references to his own column, nine to FactCheck.org and four to PolitiFact.
"This week, it's the Republicans' week. They're going to be very annoyed and pushy over the things we say," Kessler said. "I fully anticipate next week at the Democratic convention that the tables will be turned."
The campaigns may publicly take issue with the fact checkers, but journalists who run the projects say the political camps respond professionally to questions about statements made by their candidates. The Obama campaign has tasked one media officer to deal exclusively with fact checker s' questions, and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom often personally handles requests.
But Brooks Jackson, executive director of FactCheck.org, said he fears the campaigns have come to see running afoul of fact checkers as something of a badge of honor.
And the fact checkers say they don't see their role as designed to change the behavior of politicians - or to convince the public of a particular point of view in any given debate. Their goal, they say, is to provide more information for voters to do with as they see fit.
"I don't know if we're winning hearts and minds," Adair said. "I know we're succeeding in informing people."
heldermanr@washpost.com
David A. Fahrenthold and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1105 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 31, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Unscripted Eastwood makes the GOP's day
BYLINE: Amy Argetsinger
SECTION: A section; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 722 words
You don't expect "unscripted" from political conventions, just as you don't expect comedy stylings from Clint Eastwood. But that's what the Hollywood legend brought to his much-anticipated speech Thursday night at the Republican National Convention.
At times shticky, rambling and somewhat off-message from his GOP hosts, Eastwood spent a bulk of his 10 minutes in prime time addressing President Obama in the form of an empty chair.
"I know people in your own party were disappointed when you didn't close Gitmo," he said to the chair. "I thought it was because someone had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York. . . . I'll give you credit for overruling that."
Eastwood's appearance marked the boldest backing of a Republican candidate by a Hollywood A-lister in a generation or more. The 82-year-old has won renown (and two Oscars) for his directing in recent decades, but it was against the tough-guy silhouette of his 1976 "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and a twanging guitar that he arrived at the podium.
"I know what you're thinking, you're thinking, 'What's a movie tradesman doing up here? They're all left wingers out there!' " he began. "There are a lot of conservative people, moderate people, in Hollywood. . . . The conservative people by definition play it a little more close to the vest. . . . Believe me, they're there."
He recalled Obama's election night with some gentle sarcasm. "They were talking about hope and change. . . . I thought, 'This is great.' Everyone was crying. Oprah was crying. I was even crying."
Sharp segue: "There's 23 million unemployed people in this country. That's something to cry for."
Turning to the empty chair, he quizzed the absent president about Afghanistan in tones that suggested he favors a quick exit. "You mentioned about having a target date for bringing everybody home - I think Mr. Romney said, why are you putting out the date now, why don't you bring them home tomorrow morning?"
And then, sounding like your crabby uncle doing dinner-table comedy: "What do you want me to tell Romney?" Feigning mild outrage at an imaginary expletive from the president, Eastwood told the chair, "I can't tell him to do that! He can't do that to himself!"
No reliance on a teleprompter here; Eastwood even gave the impression he was talking off the top of his head. The room laughed heartily and roared its approval throughout, but many TV viewers expressed bafflement on Twitter.
Democrats merrily mocked the Eastwood performance. "Referring all questions to Salvador Dali," said Obama reelection spokesman Ben LaBolt.
Romney advisers took a lenient view of the star's looseness, describing it as "a break from all the political speeches."
"Judging an American icon like Clint Eastwood through a typical political lens doesn't work," said a campaign spokesperson. "His ad libbing was a break from all the political speeches, and the crowd enjoyed it. He rightly pointed out that 23 million Americans out of work or underemployed is a national disgrace, and it's time for a change."
Even before he took the stage, Eastwood's decision to speak out for Romney was something of a surprise. The outspoken star has had a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards party politics over the years. The former nonpartisan mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., voted for Dwight Eisenhower and endorsed Richard Nixon. But he's also embraced environmental causes, supported Democratic candidates and described himself as a social liberal on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
Eastwood endorsed John McCain in 2008 but did not take an outspoken role in that campaign. And he's continued to keep the public guessing. In February, when he lent his gravelly whisper of authority to a Super Bowl ad for Chrysler ("we all pulled together and now Motor City is fighting again."), many pols were quick to read into it a pro-bailout, pro-Obama message. Eastwood denied it (and, in fact, he has said he opposed the bailout), claiming it was simply about "American pride and job growth."
As he seemed to wrap up his speech, the crowds called for his most famous catchphrase, from his vigilante cop character "Dirty Harry" Callahan.
"I'll start it, you finish it," he said. "Go ahead . . ."
From the crowd: "MAKE MY DAY!"
argetsingera@washpost.com
Rosalind Helderman and Rachel Weiner contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1106 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 31, 2012 Friday 6:36 PM EST
Mitt Romney launches text-to-donate effort;
Republican nominee's announcement follow similar effort by President Obama.
BYLINE: Dan Eggen
LENGTH: 383 words
Newly crowned Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney launched a text-to-donate effort Friday, following a similar move by President Obama's campaign last week.
Mobile phone users will be able to give $10 to Romney's presidential campaign by texting the word GIVE to 37377, the campaign said in a news release.
"We recognize that people lead busy lives, but they still want to support Governor Romney with whatever means they have," Romney digital director Zac Moffat said in a statement. "Our goal is to breach the wall that has traditionally kept activists and citizens from contributing to the campaign."
The move follows the launch of a similar program last week by Obama's campaign, which has begun asking supporters to text GIVE to 62262 (short for "OBAMA").
The efforts mark a significant new development in the world of political fundraising, allowing campaigns to raise money in much the same way that major charities have long done in response to natural disasters and other events. The tactic was made possible by a series of Federal Election Commission rulings in recent months on how to adhere to legal restrictions related to the timing of contributions.
Text donations will give both campaigns a chance to strengthen their grassroots fundraising efforts. Obama has raised nearly half of his money from donations under $200, but Romney has outdistanced him in recent months by bringing in more large checks.
The campaigns will likely make text donations a regular part of their pitches in broadcast and Internet ads, as well as during major events such as next week's Democratic Party convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Under FEC rules, text contributions from individuals are limited to $50 per month and $200 total per candidate. Campaigns do not have to pubicly identify donors who give under $200, though they are required to make sure they are U.S. citizens or legal residents.
The text-to-donate option is available for Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and U.S. Cellular users, but both campaigns say they are still negotiating with AT&T. Neither campaign has disclosed how much of each donation will be spent on carrier payments and other fees, which can run up to 50 percent in some commercial transactions but can be offered at a discount for campaigns without running afoul of election rules.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1107 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 31, 2012 Friday 2:06 PM EST
Why 2008 Obama is Mitt Romney's best friend;
The high horse Obama rode into office on in 2008 is one of his biggest obstacles in the 2012 campaign.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 794 words
TAMPA - Mitt Romney made one thing very clear during his speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night: Hes happy to run against President Obama in 2012, but hes even happier to run against the Barack Obama of 2008.
The one consistent element tying together Romneys generally well-received address accepting the GOP nomination was the big hopes with which Obama came into office.
And at the pinnacle of his address, Romney offered a contrast.
By going small.
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet, the former Massachusetts governor said, as GOP delegates applauded. Romney added: My promise is to help you and your family.
Thats hyperbole, of course. Obama never really pledged to do those things, but that was the message that was ascribed to his campaign. And what was he to do in the midst of a presidential race but embrace it? Obamas nomination speech in Denver in 2008 even featured what appeared to be Greek columns flanking him in a 75,000-seat football stadium that was commandeered to harness the huge enthusiasm behind his candidacy.
With that line, Romney was saying hes not just the anti-Obama, but the anti-Obama-2008 - hes a businessman, not a mythical figure.
And he executed it with considerably more success than his predecessor as Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Four years ago, McCains campaign offered an ad that likened Obama to celebrities including Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.The ad was largely derided as dismissive of Obama and underhanded politicsfrom a guy fighting to get noticed.
Today, with three and half years under Obamas belt as president and lingering economic problems, its an easier case to make. Thats because Obama has an all-too-human record.
In fact, the same high hopes that Obama rode into office and embraced with his "hope" and "change" message are one of his greatest obstacles in the 2012 campaign.
Obamas message today is essentially that it could have been worse, and some progress is being made.That stands in stark contrast to the hopes the accompanied his 2008 election.
More and more in 2012, you can expect to see that dichotomy being drawn. Romney served notice Thursday that hes ready to make Obamas former world-beating image into a major campaign issue. Which is smart.
And the more he can drive that point home, the more likely he is to replace Obama as president.
Romney defends GM plant claim: GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan is defending his attacks on Obama's role in a closed GM plant in Ryan's district.
In his speech Wednesday night, Ryan appeared to blame Obama for the closure of the GM plant in Janesville, but the media and fact-checkers were quick to point out that the plant actually was set to be closed in mid-2008, when President Bush was still president.
Ryan told CNN on Thursday that it wasn't his intention to connect those dots, and he continued the GOP attempts to make an issue of Obama 2008.
"Im saying he came and made these promises, makes these commitments, sells people on the notion that hes going to do all these great achievements, and then none of them occur," Ryan said. "These are empty promises that become broken promises, and thats the story of the Obama economy.
Fixbits:
TV ratings for this year's GOP convention are way down from four years ago, when Sarah Palin had just been picked as McCain's running mate and drove huge viewership.
A new independent poll in blue-leaning Michigan shows Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 46 percent, within the margin of error.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush uses his convention speech to implore Obama to stop blaming his brother, former President George W. Bush, for the country's ongoing economic problems.
Speaking of Florida, Al Gorecalls for the abolition of the electoral college.
Democrats land a former Republican for their convention: independent Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee.
David Koch speaks out.
New York Magazine reports Palin's contract at Fox News may not be renewed.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) says he turned down an offer for a bigger role at the GOP convention. He showed up for less than a day.
Former top Newt Gingrich adviser Rick Tyler has joined Rep. Todd Akin's (R) embattled Missouri Senate campaign.
A Democratic poll shows Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) leading Republican Kim Vann 54 percent to 39 percent.
Must-reads:
"At Convention, Lines Blur Between Party and Super PACs" - Nicholas Confessore, New York Times
"Base Turnout Strategy May Be Too Narrow for Romney" - Nate Silver, New York Times
"A Reporter Whos Part of the Story" - Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times
"Outside convention, vendors and fringe politicians reign" - David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1108 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 31, 2012 Friday 12:46 PM EST
Clint Eastwood talks to invisible Obama;
A very surreal convention moment.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 295 words
The famous actor did something close to a standup routine at the RNC, asking questions of an imaginary President Obama in a chair next to the podium.
After grilling invisible Obama on jobs, Afghanistan, and more, Eastwood responded to the (rather rude) president: "I'm not gonna shut up. Its my turn." And later, pretending that Obama had asked him to relay an unpleasant message to Romney, Eastwood said: "I'm not going to tell him to do that, he can't do that to himself, you're absolutely crazy."
He rambled from topic to topic, knocking Obama along the way for flying around in a big plane and running negative ads. He called Joe Biden "the intellect of the Democratic Party. Kind of a grin with a body behind it.
"I just think that there's so much to be done," he said, "and I just think that Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are two guys to come along. See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to be president anyway." (Romney, in fact, went to Harvard Law School). "Ithink it's time for a businessman," he added, "a stellar businessman."
All in all it was one of the most surreal moments in convention history, but the crowd was welcoming, changing "Make my day!" enthusiastically at the close of Eastwood's performance.
"Judging an American icon like Clint Eastwood through a typical political lens doesn't work," a Romney campaign spokesperson said. "His ad libbing was a break from all the political speeches, and the crowd enjoyed it."
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt, for his part, offered this comment:"Referring all questions on this to Salvador Dali."
(Read the full text of Eastwood's RNC speech)
Read more from PostPolitics
Romney makes plea to 'restore the promise of America'
Fact-checking the fact-checkers?
Did Paul Ryan bend the truth? Does it matter?
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1109 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 31, 2012 Friday 1:54 AM EST
Did Paul Ryan bend the truth? And does it matter?;
Fact-checkers have accused the GOP vice presidential nominee of playing fast and loose with the facts in his convention speech.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1069 words
TAMPA - Republicans have accused President Obama of trading in his message of hope and change for Chicago-style politics.
But their own new vice presidential pick also took a step down from the political high road on Wednesday night, or at least exposed himself to criticism of playing fast and loose with the facts.
Rep. Paul Ryans speech at the Republican National Convention, while well-received by delegates and pundits, has drawn plenty of criticism from fact-checkers for its claims on three matters: the closing of a GM plant in Ryans district, Obamas Medicare proposal and the Simpson-Bowles debt commission report.
And interest in the controversy is catching on. As of this posting, "Janesville GM" is a top search term on Twitter and#LyinRyan is one of the top-trending hashtags, as is a competing hashtag poking fun at fact-checkers, #EastwoodFactCheck.
There is clearly a debate roiling over the veracity of Ryan's speech and the fact-checkers' response to it.
Heres the basic rundown (and for more detail, check out Glenn Kessler's post from this morning):
1. Ryan appeared to suggest that Obama was to blame for the closing of the GM plant in Janesville, Wis., saying: Obama said: I believe that if our government is there to support you this plant will be here for another hundred years. Thats what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didnt last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. But the closure of the plan was announced in mid-2008, when President George W. Bush was still in office and before Obama assumed the presidency, and the plant was mostly shuttered by the end 2008.
2. Ryan took aim at Obamas Medicare proposal: They needed hundreds of billions more [for Obamacare].So, they just took it all away from Medicare, $716 billion dollars funneled out of Medicare by President Obama. Left unsaid: Ryans own budget made basically the same cuts to Medicare. Since being chosen as Mitt Romneys running mate, Ryan has embraced the GOP presidential nominee's plan to restore those cuts. But he still favored them at one point enough to put them in his own budget.
3. Ryan criticized Obama for assembling the Simpson-Bowles debt commission and then declining to act on the panel's final report: He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report.He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing. Left unsaid here: Ryan himself served on the debt commission and voted against its suggestions. And by doing so, the House Budget Committee chairman helped kill the proposal, given the clout he has with his party on such matters.
Fact-checkers are basically unanimous that all three of these claims either stretch the truth or are flat-out false.
The question is: Does this become a political problem for Ryan?
All of these are pretty run-of-the-mill political tricks. Ryan is omitting key facts and nudging voters to connect dots that he, himself, (and the facts) dont connect.
Ryan doesnt explicitly blame Obama for the closing of the GM plant, but its clearly suggested. His claim about Medicare is technically accurate, even as it ignores a very important fact. And, similarly, Ryan totally ignores his own role in the Simpson-Bowles proposals demise while hitting Obama for it.
In each case, though, Republicans have left themselves wiggle room.
He didn't talk about Obama closing the plant, top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said on CNN this morning a statement that is technically true. Romneys team argues that Ryan was saying more about Obamas failure to reopen the plant, which Obama has pledged to do and which Ryan mentioned in his speech ("It is locked up and empty to this day"). But anybody who watched the speech would be left with the impression that it closed under Obama.
On Simpson-Bowles, Fehrnstrom said: There's an obligation on the part of people in Congress, if they reject Simpson-Bowles, to talk about what they will put in its place.Paul Ryandid that.
Ryan's defense here is more plausible. Ryan was criticizing Obama for not acting on a proposal that Ryan himself opposed, but he was also clearly hitting Obama more broadly as lacking leadership on the issue of the debt.
The risk for Republicans in all this is if the focus of Ryans speech shifts from its delivery to its context.
Fact-checkers do play a key role in the political media because their conclusions have a way of becoming part of the conventional wisdom. Look at the Priorities USA ad featuring Joe Soptic. Fact-checkers were the first to decry it, and now many reporters are simply describing that ad as false and grilling the Obama campaign and White House officials about it.
If Ryan becomes known for bending the truth, it could color the generally positive views of his character. The fact is that Ryan has presented himself as a teller of tough political truths, and fact-checkers' verdicts on his speech Wednesday night could undercut that image.
Romney adviser John Sununu told The Fix on Thursday that fact-checkers' verdicts can throw the campaign off its message.
"Oh, yeah, because I personally believe they are so biased anyway," Sununu said.
The lines from Ryans speech dont strike us as being quite so egregious as the Soptic ad in that they dont involve accusing someone of essentially killing somebody. But they do have the potential to cause advisers like Fehrnstrom and Sununu to answer some tough questions on TV and in the press, in much the same way the Soptic ad has put the Obama team in a tough spot.
Both campaigns have been accused and rightly so of being untruthful at times. Which campaign has been the worse offender is in the eye of the beholder, but neither side is taking the high road.
From there, its definitely worth parsing which claims are more or less accurate than others. The prevailing picture for most undecided American voters will simply be: Theyre both liars.
It's interesting that the media - even non-fact-checkers - now seem emboldened to fact-check these claims. Speeches like Ryan's didn't used to be parsed for the facts as closely as they are today.
At least for now, though, the fact-checkers' microscopes don't appear to be giving the campaigns much pause when it comes to making more truth-stretching claims.
Read more from PostPolitics
Fact-checking Paul Ryan's RNC speech
RNC Night Two: Winners and losers
Mitt Romney to deliver the speech of his life
The Grid: Full coverage of the GOP convention
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1110 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 31, 2012 Friday
Met 2 Edition
Romney seizes moment, rips Obama
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 447 words
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum Et harumd und lookum like Greek to me, dereud facilis est er expedit distinct. Nam liber te conscient to factor tum poen legum odioque civiuda. Et tam neque pecun modut est neque nonor et imper ned libidig met, consecteLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum Et harumd und lookum like Greek to me, dereud facilis est er expedit distinct. Nam liber te conscient to factor tum poen legum odioque civiuda. Et tam neque pecun modut est neque nonor et imper ned libidig met, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed ut labore et dolore magna aliquam makes one wonder who would ever read this stuff? Bis nostrud exercitation ullam mmodo consequet. Duis aute in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.tur adipiscing elit, sed ut labore et dolore magna aliquam makes one wonder who would ever read this stuff? Bis nostrud exercitation ullam mmodo consequet. Duis aute in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum Et harumd und lookum like Greek to me, dereud facilis est er expedit distinct. Nam liber te conscient to factor tum poen legum odioque civiuda. Et tam neque pecun modut est neque nonor et imper ned libidig met, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed ut labore et dolore magna aliquam makes one wonder who would ever read this stuff? Bis nostrud exercitation ullam mmodo consequet. Duis aute in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1111 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 31, 2012 Friday
Met 2 Edition
Fact checkers face quick push-back on Ryan speech Fact checkers face quick push-backon Ryan speech
BYLINE: Rosalind S. Helderman
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2721 words
DATELINE: TAMPA
TAMPA - Did Paul Ryan bend the truth?
The verdict, rendered by a slew of media fact checkers, was immediate and unequivocal: In his first major speech before the American people, the Republican vice presidential nominee repeatedly left out key facts, ignored context and was blind to his own hypocrisy.
The speech contained "several false and misleading statements," declared FactCheck.org, run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. The speech was "not without inaccuracies,"asserted PolitiFact, the Pulitzer-winning project of the Tampa Bay Times.
But the push-back from the Romney campaign, and Republicans at large, was just as quick and just as self-assured. "Lemmings to their own death," read the headline of a column by Erick Erickson on the conservative Web site RedState.com. "The fact checkers are not checking facts, they are spinning," he wrote.
Jon Cassidy, writing on the Web site Human Events, said one fact-checking outfit declares conservatives inaccurate three times as often as it does liberals. "You might reasonably conclude that PolitiFact is biased," he wrote.
The Ryan experience, which consumed the Republican National Convention and the broader political world Thursday, was a hyper-fast example of a pattern that has emerged again and again during this campaign, as fact-checking operations created and institutionalized during the 2004 and 2008 races have become key referees in the fight between Mitt Romney and President Obama.
Fact-checker findings, including those by The Washington Post's project, figure prominently in campaign ads. The unique rating systems used by these organizations - including the trademarked Truth-O-Meter and Pinocchios - have become part of the political vernacular. In today's rapidly evolving media environment, fact-check requests are a top priority for campaign media shops, which have designated specific advisers to deal with the questions.
Now, the fact checkers themselves are increasingly under fire, as the campaigns and their allies try to manage the fallout from their verdicts.
Campaigns take issue
This week, Romney's campaign faced questions about its repeated accusation that Obama ended welfare work requirements - even after fact checkers decreed that assertion false. Romney pollster Neil Newhouse turned the challenge back on the fact checkers, saying they bring their own "thoughts and beliefs" to the process.
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers," Newhouse said.
The Obama campaign, too, has targeted the fact checkers. They sent a public letter of complaintto FactCheck.org after the group concluded that it was unfair to blame Romney for actions taken by his onetime company, Bain Capital, after his day-to-day involvement with it ended in 1998. The Post's Fact Checker reached the same conclusion.
Last year, when PolitiFact awarded its "lie of the year" prize to the Democratic accusation that Republicans who supported the Ryan budget had voted to end Medicare, it triggered one of the fiercest waves of push-back to date. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman slammed the service in a piece headlined "PolitiFact, R.I.P."
"I think this is a classic tactic in a new media time. They're relying on our work when it helps them and ignoring or pushing back on our work when it hurts them," said Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact, which employs six reporters and editors for national news and 30 additional workers for regional news.
Although news organizations have long sought to truth-squad political statements, the creation of special fact-checking units is a new development. Eager to appeal to consumers tired of he-said-she-said coverage, and in a time when news consumption has grown increasingly polarized, organizations are now more amenable to simple declarations of fact (and fiction) - no easy task during an election season.
FactCheck.org was founded in 2003 to make rulings about statements in the 2004 presidential race. By November 2004, the site was getting more than 200,000 page views a day. PolitiFact was founded in the run-up to the 2008 election, as was The Post's Fact Checker. The latter returned, written by Glenn Kessler, in January 2011. The goal, say their authors, is to provide voters with an easy way to understand facts amid the daily din of partisan combat.
Ryan defends line of attack
For Ryan, a leading issue this week is whether he was fair to blame Obama for the shuttering of a General Motors plant in his home town of Janesville, Wis.
"Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you . . . this plant will be here for another 100 years.' That's what he said in 2008," Ryan said in his convention speech. "Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day."
After Ryan spoke, the Web site PolitiFact Wisconsin - a partnership between PolitiFact and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - rated the assertion "false."
The site noted that "the plant closed while [President George W.] Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated."
Kessler called Ryan's statement "technically correct but phrased in a way that might leave listeners with the wrong impression" and awarded it two Pinocchios.
Conservatives said it was unfair to call the statement inaccurate. Although the plant closed in 2009, people had voted for Obama on the premise that he had the power to reopen it. Former New Hampshire governor John E. Sununu, a top Romney surrogate, said that "the sentence Paul Ryan used was correct" because Obama could have "done something to get it so that it would stay open for 100 years."
"So, with all due respect to the Obama people and the fact checkers, they're wrong," Sununu said. "I find it amazing that fact checkers themselves need fact-checking."
Ryan, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, defended his remarks. "I'm not saying it was his decision," the Wisconsin Republican said. "I'm saying he came and made these promises, makes these commitments, sells people on the notion that he's going to do all these great achievements, and then none of them occur."
Although Romney aides insist that they do not look to fact checkers to decide whether a line of attack is fair, Romney suggested this month that Obama should do exactly that.
"You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them," Romney said, blasting an ad by an Obama super PAC that blamed the Republican for the cancer death of the wife of a man who lost health insurance after Bain Capital closed his workplace.
On his Web site this week, Kessler posted a Romney news release describing the "Obama Campaign's Top Ten Lies & Exaggerations," which draws heavily from the work of fact checkers - including seven references to his own column, nine to FactCheck.org and four to PolitiFact.
"This week, it's the Republicans' week. They're going to be very annoyed and pushy over the things we say," Kessler said. "I fully anticipate next week at the Democratic convention that the tables will be turned."
The campaigns may publicly take issue with the fact checkers, but journalists who run the projects say the political camps respond professionally to questions about statements made by their candidates. The Obama campaign has tasked one media officer to deal exclusively with fact checker s' questions, and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom often personally handles requests.
But Brooks Jackson, executive director of FactCheck.org, said he fears that the campaigns have come to see running afoul of fact checkers as something of a badge of honor.
And the fact checkers say they don't see their role as designed to change the behavior of politicians - or to convince the public of a particular point of view in any given debate. Their goal, they say, is to provide more information for voters to do with as they see fit.
"I don't know if we're winning hearts and minds," Adair said. "I know we're succeeding in informing people."
heldermanr@washpost.com
David A. Fahrenthold and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.
TAMPA - Did Paul Ryan bend the truth?
The verdict, rendered by a slew of media fact checkers, was immediate and unequivocal: In his first major speech before the American people, the Republican vice presidential nominee repeatedly left out key facts, ignored context and was blind to his own hypocrisy.
The speech contained "several false and misleading statements," declared FactCheck.org, run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. The speech was "not without inaccuracies,"asserted PolitiFact, the Pulitzer-winning project of the Tampa Bay Times.
But the push-back from the Romney campaign, and Republicans at large, was just as quick and just as self-assured. "Lemmings to their own death," read the headline of a column by Erick Erickson on the conservative Web site RedState.com. "The fact checkers are not checking facts, they are spinning," he wrote.
Jon Cassidy, writing on the Web site Human Events, said one fact-checking outfit declares conservatives inaccurate three times as often as it does liberals. "You might reasonably conclude that PolitiFact is biased," he wrote.
The Ryan experience, which consumed the Republican National Convention and the broader political world Thursday, was a hyper-fast example of a pattern that has emerged again and again during this campaign, as fact-checking operations created and institutionalized during the 2004 and 2008 races have become key referees in the fight between Mitt Romney and President Obama.
Fact-checker findings, including those by The Washington Post's project, figure prominently in campaign ads. The unique rating systems used by these organizations - including the trademarked Truth-O-Meter and Pinocchios - have become part of the political vernacular. In today's rapidly evolving media environment, fact-check requests are a top priority for campaign media shops, which have designated specific advisers to deal with the questions.
Now, the fact checkers themselves are increasingly under fire, as the campaigns and their allies try to manage the fallout from their verdicts.
Campaigns push back
This week, Romney's campaign faced questions about its repeated accusation that Obama ended welfare work requirements - even after fact checkers decreed that assertion false. Romney pollster Neil Newhouse turned the challenge back on the fact checkers, saying they bring their own "thoughts and beliefs" to the process.
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers," Newhouse said.
The Obama campaign, too, has targeted the fact checkers. They sent a public letter of complaintto FactCheck.org after the group concluded that it was unfair to blame Romney for actions taken by his onetime company, Bain Capital, after his day-to-day involvement with it ended in 1998. The Post's Fact Checker reached the same conclusion.
Last year, when PolitiFact awarded its "lie of the year" prize to the Democratic accusation that Republicans who supported the Ryan budget had voted to end Medicare, it triggered one of the fiercest waves of push-back to date. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman slammed the service in a piece headlined "PolitiFact, R.I.P."
"I think this is a classic tactic in a new media time. They're relying on our work when it helps them and ignoring or pushing back on our work when it hurts them," said Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact, which employs six reporters and editors for national news and 30 additional workers for regional news.
Although news organizations have long sought to truth-squad political statements, the creation of special fact-checking units is a new development. Eager to appeal to consumers tired of he-said-she-said coverage, and in a time when news consumption has grown increasingly polarized, organizations are now more amenable to simple declarations of fact (and fiction) - no easy task during an election season.
FactCheck.org was founded in 2003 to make rulings about statements in the 2004 presidential race. By November 2004, the site was getting more than 200,000 page views a day. PolitiFact was founded in the run-up to the 2008 election, as was The Post's Fact Checker. The latter returned, written by Glenn Kessler, in January 2011. The goal, say their authors, is to provide voters with an easy way to understand facts amid the daily din of partisan combat.
Ryan defends line of attack
For Ryan, a leading issue this week is whether he was fair to blame Obama for the shuttering of a General Motors plant in his home town of Janesville, Wis.
"Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you . . . this plant will be here for another 100 years.' That's what he said in 2008," Ryan said in his convention speech. "Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day."
After Ryan spoke, the Web site PolitiFact Wisconsin - a partnership between PolitiFact and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - rated the assertion "false."
The site noted that "the plant closed while [President George W.] Bush was still in office, about a month before Obama was inaugurated."
Kessler called Ryan's statement "technically correct but phrased in a way that might leave listeners with the wrong impression" and awarded it two Pinocchios.
Conservatives said it was unfair to call the statement inaccurate. Although the plant closed in 2009, people had voted for Obama on the premise that he had the power to reopen it. Former New Hampshire governor John E. Sununu, a top Romney surrogate, said that "the sentence Paul Ryan used was correct" because Obama could have "done something to get it so that it would stay open for 100 years."
"So, with all due respect to the Obama people and the fact checkers, they're wrong," Sununu said. "I find it amazing that fact checkers themselves need fact-checking."
Ryan, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, defended his remarks. "I'm not saying it was his decision," the Wisconsin Republican said. "I'm saying he came and made these promises, makes these commitments, sells people on the notion that he's going to do all these great achievements, and then none of them occur."
Although Romney aides insist that they do not look to fact checkers to decide whether a line of attack is fair, Romney suggested this month that Obama should do exactly that.
"You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them," Romney said, blasting an ad by an Obama super PAC that blamed the Republican for the cancer death of the wife of a man who lost health insurance after Bain Capital closed his workplace.
On his Web site this week, Kessler posted a Romney news release describing the "Obama Campaign's Top Ten Lies & Exaggerations," which draws heavily from the work of fact checkers - including seven references to his own column, nine to FactCheck.org and four to PolitiFact.
"This week, it's the Republicans' week. They're going to be very annoyed and pushy over the things we say," Kessler said. "I fully anticipate next week at the Democratic convention that the tables will be turned."
The campaigns may publicly take issue with the fact checkers, but journalists who run the projects say the political camps respond professionally to questions about statements made by their candidates. The Obama campaign has tasked one media officer to deal exclusively with fact checker s' questions, and top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom often personally handles requests.
But Brooks Jackson, executive director of FactCheck.org, said he fears the campaigns have come to see running afoul of fact checkers as something of a badge of honor.
And the fact checkers say they don't see their role as designed to change the behavior of politicians - or to convince the public of a particular point of view in any given debate. Their goal, they say, is to provide more information for voters to do with as they see fit.
"I don't know if we're winning hearts and minds," Adair said. "I know we're succeeding in informing people."
heldermanr@washpost.com
David A. Fahrenthold and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1112 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 31, 2012 Friday
Met 2 Edition
Unscripted Eastwood makes the GOP's day
BYLINE: Amy Argetsinger
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 722 words
You don't expect "unscripted" from political conventions, just as you don't expect comedy stylings from Clint Eastwood. But that's what the Hollywood legend brought to his much-anticipated speech Thursday night at the Republican National Convention.
At times shticky, rambling and somewhat off-message from his GOP hosts, Eastwood spent a bulk of his 10 minutes in prime time addressing President Obama in the form of an empty chair.
"I know people in your own party were disappointed when you didn't close Gitmo," he said to the chair. "I thought it was because someone had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York. . . . I'll give you credit for overruling that."
Eastwood's appearance marked the boldest backing of a Republican candidate by a Hollywood A-lister in a generation or more. The 82-year-old has won renown (and two Oscars) for his directing in recent decades, but it was against the tough-guy silhouette of his 1976 "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and a twanging guitar that he arrived at the podium.
"I know what you're thinking, you're thinking, 'What's a movie tradesman doing up here? They're all left wingers out there!' " he began. "There are a lot of conservative people, moderate people, in Hollywood. . . . The conservative people by definition play it a little more close to the vest. . . . Believe me, they're there."
He recalled Obama's election night with some gentle sarcasm. "They were talking about hope and change. . . . I thought, 'This is great.' Everyone was crying. Oprah was crying. I was even crying."
Sharp segue: "There's 23 million unemployed people in this country. That's something to cry for."
Turning to the empty chair, he quizzed the absent president about Afghanistan in tones that suggested he favors a quick exit. "You mentioned about having a target date for bringing everybody home - I think Mr. Romney said, why are you putting out the date now, why don't you bring them home tomorrow morning?"
And then, sounding like your crabby uncle doing dinner-table comedy: "What do you want me to tell Romney?" Feigning mild outrage at an imaginary expletive from the president, Eastwood told the chair, "I can't tell him to do that! He can't do that to himself!"
No reliance on a teleprompter here; Eastwood even gave the impression he was talking off the top of his head. The room laughed heartily and roared its approval throughout, but many TV viewers expressed bafflement on Twitter.
Democrats merrily mocked the Eastwood performance. "Referring all questions to Salvador Dali," said Obama reelection spokesman Ben LaBolt.
Romney advisers took a lenient view of the star's looseness, describing it as "a break from all the political speeches."
"Judging an American icon like Clint Eastwood through a typical political lens doesn't work," said a campaign spokesperson. "His ad libbing was a break from all the political speeches, and the crowd enjoyed it. He rightly pointed out that 23 million Americans out of work or underemployed is a national disgrace, and it's time for a change."
Even before he took the stage, Eastwood's decision to speak out for Romney was something of a surprise. The outspoken star has had a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards party politics over the years. The former nonpartisan mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., voted for Dwight Eisenhower and endorsed Richard Nixon. But he's also embraced environmental causes, supported Democratic candidates and described himself as a social liberal on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
Eastwood endorsed John McCain in 2008 but did not take an outspoken role in that campaign. And he's continued to keep the public guessing. In February, when he lent his gravelly whisper of authority to a Super Bowl ad for Chrysler ("we all pulled together and now Motor City is fighting again."), many pols were quick to read into it a pro-bailout, pro-Obama message. Eastwood denied it (and, in fact, he has said he opposed the bailout), claiming it was simply about "American pride and job growth."
As he seemed to wrap up his speech, the crowds called for his most famous catchphrase, from his vigilante cop character "Dirty Harry" Callahan.
"I'll start it, you finish it," he said. "Go ahead . . ."
From the crowd: "MAKE MY DAY!"
argetsingera@washpost.com
Rosalind Helderman and Rachel Weiner contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1113 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 30, 2012 Thursday
The New York Times on the Web
Ryan to Reassure Middle Class and Renew Attack on 'Obamacare'
BYLINE: By CARL HULSE
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; National Desk; Pg.
LENGTH: 1196 words
TAMPA, Fla. -- Representative Paul D. Ryan, framing the presidential election as the ''clearest choice possible,'' intends to use his prime-time moment at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night to assure Americans that he and Mitt Romney can oversee a strong economic recovery.
''We have a plan for a stronger middle class, with the goal of generating 12 million new jobs over the next four years,'' Mr. Ryan, who has become the party's leader on economic policy, will say, according to excerpts provided by the campaign.
In the excerpts, Mr. Ryan takes some strong shots at President Obama, noting that a new Republican administration would ''not spend four years blaming others -- we will take responsibility.''
''After four years of getting the runaround, America needs a turnaround, and the man for the job is Gov. Mitt Romney,'' Mr. Ryan will say in his speech, which presents a major opportunity for him to make the case for denying Mr. Obama a second term.
In a reference to Mr. Ryan's budget plan and the partisan division over his plans to overhaul Medicare and cut spending, Mr. Ryan's remarks say: ''We will not duck the tough issues -- we will lead.''
In accepting his party's vice-presidential nomination, Mr. Ryan will also renew the Republican push to repeal the new health care law -- a pledge certain to meet with a strong response in the convention hall.
'' 'Obamacare' comes to more than 2,000-pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees and fines that have no place in a free country,'' he says in the excerpts. ''The president has declared that the debate over government-controlled health care is over. That will come as news to the millions of Americans who will elect Mitt Romney so we can repeal 'Obamacare.' ''
As the storm-shortened convention headed into its second full day of activities, Mr. Ryan, the Wisconsin lawmaker who leads the House Budget Committee, was the unequivocal star attraction in a lineup of speakers that was heavy on Mr. Ryan's Congressional colleagues, including Senator John McCain, the party's unsuccessful 2008 presidential nominee.
Mr. Ryan's speech was to provide the biggest opportunity yet for the 42-year-old conservative to make the case for his vision -- embraced by Congressional Republicans and much of the party's intelligentsia -- of how to rein in soaring entitlement spending, shrink the size of government and alter federal spending priorities. His admirers were expecting him to shine.
''Tonight, the American people -- millions who may not know a lot about Paul Ryan other than the headlines that they've read -- are going to get to know Paul Ryan the way many of us know him; as a serious policy thinker,'' Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said on ABC's ''Good Morning America.'' He called Mr. Ryan someone who ''brings a unique life experience and a unique perspective on some of the issues that we face because of his age, because of our generation but, at the same time, someone who is as deep and serious a thinker about our issues as ever before.''
Democrats were just as eager as Republicans to focus public attention on Mr. Ryan and his plans. A group of top Democrats arrived in Tampa to slice and dice Mr. Ryan's budget. The Democratic National Committee took out a full-page ad in The Tampa Tribune to accuse Mr. Ryan of trying to ''end Medicare as we know it'' through his proposal to provide federal health insurance subsidies for future retirees so they can buy private insurance rather than enroll in Medicare. The party also has two billboards with similar themes in the vicinity of the convention hall and plans to have a plane pull a banner Wednesday night with the message: ''Romney-Ryan: Wrong for the Middle Class.''
Even as the political sniping went on, the convention managers and the Romney campaign were closely monitoring events unfolding along the Gulf Coast just a few hundred miles away as Hurricane Isaac pummeled Louisiana with rain and wind, causing flooding and providing a stark televised contrast to the convention festivities.
Besides Mr. Ryan and Mr. McCain, the speakers were to include Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, John Thune of South Dakota and Rob Portman of Ohio; Mr. Portman was among the top contenders for the vice-presidential slot that went to Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan's speech is unlikely to focus too heavily on the wonkier details of his budget plan, which has twice passed the House. The Romney campaign has been distancing itself from the proposal, seeking to make clear that the presidential nominee will be the one responsible for setting economic policy.
Mr. Ryan also needs to introduce himself to the many Americans who will be listening to him for the first time. But the budget and his economic proposals are such an indelible part of his identity that discussion of the contentious policy plans and their implications will be unavoidable.
Republicans say they believe that the American public is ready to engage in a serious debate over how to get a handle on entitlement costs and that they can persuade voters that their plans will help keep Medicare solvent and show them as the party willing to make tough decisions. They see Mr. Ryan's budget as a formidable political weapon.
''It does distinguish what we are about as Republicans versus what the president has been about,'' said Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, a close ally and friend of Mr. Ryan.
''What the budget that Paul offered does is say that we Republicans want to solve a problem,'' said Mr. Cantor, the House majority leader.
Democrats argue that Mr. Ryan's approach would instead cause problems by driving up the costs of health care for older Americans and shaking the foundations of Medicare, the popular health insurance program.
Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Mr. Ryan's Democratic counterpart on the Budget Committee, accused Mr. Ryan on Wednesday of a ''calculated, cynical effort to confuse seniors and to hide from seniors just how bad the Romney-Ryan plan would be.''
Joining other Democrats at a news conference, Mr. Van Hollen also said that Mr. Ryan's presence on the national ticket and the emphasis on his budget were boosting Democrats in Congressional races around the country.
Aides to Mr. Ryan sought to push back forcefully against Mr. Van Hollen.
''Having already saddled the country with $5 trillion in new debt while cutting Medicare by $716 billion to pay for 'Obamacare,' President Obama cannot defend his broken promises, so he and his campaign are resorting to tired and misleading attacks,'' said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Ryan. ''Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a plan to strengthen the middle class by cutting the deficit, preserving and protecting Medicare, and lowering taxes for all American so we can create 12 million new jobs.''
Mr. Romney, who is scheduled to deliver his acceptance speech Thursday night as the convention concludes, left Tampa on Wednesday and flew to Indianapolis for a campaign appearance.
In a change of schedule, aides said that Mr. Romney was not expected to stay overnight in Indiana but instead would return to Tampa to watch the convention speeches from his hotel room with his wife, Ann.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/us/politics/focus-on-ryan-extends-to-his-budget-plan.html
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1114 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 30, 2012 Thursday
Correction Appended
Late Edition - Final
In College Town, Obama Jokes at G.O.P.'s Expense
BYLINE: By JACKIE CALMES; Jenna Wortham contributed reporting from New York.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 856 words
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- President Obama on Wednesday provided counterprogramming for a second day to the Republican National Convention, mocking its proceedings and contrasting his agenda with what he called the ''backward'' positions of Mitt Romney.
''Pay a little attention to what's happening in Tampa this week,'' Mr. Obama told a boisterous crowd estimated at 6,500, many of them students at the University of Virginia here. When the audience loudly booed at the reference to the Republicans' gathering, he said: ''Don't boo. Vote!''
While aides have said that Mr. Obama has not watched television coverage of the convention, in his speech he called it ''a pretty entertaining show'' with ''wonderful things to say about me.'' Citing a widely debunked Republican television ad claiming that Mr. Obama gutted work requirements for welfare recipients, the president said to laughter and applause, ''Sometimes they just make things up.''
It was a repeat of the playful exchanges Mr. Obama had on Tuesday in similar rallies at college campuses in two other battleground states, Iowa and Colorado, as he campaigned for the support of young voters, a group that was crucial to his 2008 election. But the White House was quick to point out that in between his appearances, the president was receiving updates from federal officials on Hurricane Isaac, he and his advisers mindful especially on the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina of the political perils of seeming insensitive to a natural disaster.
Interrupted a few times by hecklers protesting the war in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama in his speech counted the winding down of that war, the end of the war in Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden among his promises kept as he made his case for re-election.
He cited other achievements of his administration, focusing on policies popular with young voters and the Democratic base, and in each case telling his supporters the success was ''because of you'' -- and at odds with Mr. Romney's policy position.
Mr. Obama spoke of a tax credit of up to $10,000 over four years for college tuition; increased tuition grants, made possible by cutting out banks as the government's middlemen; and extension of a cap on interest rates for federal student loans.
''Or you could just take my opponent's advice and just let your parents lend you money,'' Mr. Obama said.
He said administration policies had helped double both the production of renewable energy and the fuel-efficiency standards for cars. ''And by the way, my opponent's against that,'' he said.
Mr. Obama said that Mr. Romney's proposal for a 10-year tax cut of $5 trillion would add to the debt and mostly benefit wealthy taxpayers like him and Mr. Romney. ''He needs it even less than I do,'' the president added.
Some of the biggest applause was in response to Mr. Obama's statements on social issues. Speaking of Mr. Romney, the president said, ''I tell you, on almost any issue he wants to go backward, sometimes to the last century.''
He cited his own support for same-sex marriage, the right of openly gay Americans to serve in the military, abortion rights and contraception policies for women, and protections against deportation for young people brought to the United States as children.
Telling supporters that Mr. Romney has vowed to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office -- Mr. Obama said he had ''affectionately'' adopted the Republicans' term for the health care law -- the president said that by doing so, ''with the stroke of a pen'' Mr. Romney would end insurance coverage for young people who, under the law, are covered until age 26 on their parents' insurance policies.
''I call his plan Romney Doesn't Care,'' Mr. Obama said.
''The law is here to stay,'' he added. ''The Supreme Court has spoken. We're moving forward. That's what's at stake in this election.''
After his speech, the president made a guest appearance on Reddit, the popular Web site, taking questions submitted by site members in a popular format known as Ask Me Anything, or A.M.A.
In advance of the president's arrival on the site, members posted questions including ''Is Internet freedom an issue you'd push to add to the Democratic Party's 2012 platform?'' and ''Who's your favorite basketball player?''
The president answered several questions, including one about his administration's position on Internet rights and one on the importance of space exploration. In response to a question about the most difficult decision he had had to make in office, he wrote a lengthy answer that began: ''The decision to surge our forces in Afghanistan. Any time you send our brave men and women into battle, you know that not everyone will come home safely, and that necessarily weighs heavily on you.''
At one point, a counter on the Reddit A.M.A. site said that there were more than 30,000 people visiting the page. The site seemed to buckle under the load, with many people complaining on Twitter that they were unable to access it.
PHOTO: President Obama spoke at the nTelos Wireless Pavilion in Charlottesville, Va., during a campaign rally on Wednesday. (PHOTOGRAPH BY LUKE SHARRETT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/us/politics/in-virginia-obama-attacks-romneys-positions.html
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
CORRECTION-DATE: September 5, 2012
CORRECTION:
An article on Thursday about President Obama's comments on the Republican convention and his opponent, Mitt Romney, referred imprecisely to the president's responses to user-submitted questions on the Web site Reddit the same day. While the president answered several questions, he answered only one question about Internet rights and only one about space exploration; he did not answer several questions on those two subjects.
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1115 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
August 30, 2012 Thursday
Wooden, but Wishful
BYLINE: CHARLES M. BLOW
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 787 words
HIGHLIGHT: Like Pinocchio, Mitt Romney will make a plea to be normal, to be made real.
Pinocchio wants to be a real person, and on Thursday night he's going to attempt to make the transformation on national television.
The wooden Mitt Romney, who keeps pushing the blatant lie that President Obama wants to eliminate the work requirement for welfare, will give an acceptance speech that will be the culmination of a week designed to humanize and reintroduce him.
His bid for the White House may largely depend on how successfully he delivers that speech. Although he and Obama are virtually tied in the polls, Romney is losing the Electoral College count.
There are many reasons for that, including his campaign's retro-radical policy positions in an increasingly diverse and increasingly socially progressive country. And then there's his inability to connect with voters on a visceral level. Romney continues to trail Obama badly in terms of favorability and likability.
Overall, a modern convention is a non-news event, although you wouldn't know that looking at the media swarm here in Tampa, Fla. The city was expecting up to 15,000 journalists, who would outnumber delegates and alternates by a margin of three to one.
Conventions are candidate coronations. But with all the media attention, they're also unrivaled public relations events (except of course when Mother Nature gives birth to a hurricane named Isaac). All the scripts and glitz and camera-ready choreography are designed to whip up the faithful, to woo the wavering and to reach out to the disengaged.
It is here that Romney will make the plea to be normal, to be made real.
But before we get to that, let's talk about the lies.
The Romney campaign is continuing to push the false notion that Obama has moved to eliminate the work requirement for welfare. Earlier this month, the Washington Post fact checker gave the charge its worst rating: Four Pinocchios. Tampa's own PolitiFact also gave the claim its worst rating: pants on fire. And FactCheck.org concluded that the claim was false.
But instead of pulling back the attack, the Republicans are pushing forward with it. The Republican National Committee released a new ad last week. Rick Santorum even repeated the claim from the convention podium.
Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster, recently explained that "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." Or the facts themselves, obviously.
The tendency of the Romney campaign to intentionally misrepresent the truth has become a defining trait of this campaign cycle - though it is at odds with Romney's own statements. Politico reported on Aug. 9, after Romney's first false welfare charge, that he had said in a radio interview:
You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad. They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them.
That's rich.
Now to warm and fuzzies.
On Tuesday night Ann Romney delivered a speech that started with the sappy line, "Tonight I want to talk to you about love," and ended with a thud. The motif was Mitt, the boy she "met at a high school dance," a fact that she repeated in some derivation six times. But there was something about the homage that felt hollow.
Mrs. Romney said that she wanted to "talk to you from my heart about our hearts," but never the twain did meet. She tried, and I believe that maybe she could have delivered with a better-crafted speech, one with more killer lines and less killing me softly.
But the Romney campaign is hedging its bets in case no one can sell the "real Mitt."
Gov. Chris Christie, delivering what FactCheck.org dubbed a "fact-free keynote," imparted the opposite message from Mrs. Romney, as Mitt sat stiff and uncomfortable, looking like he was either choking back tears or regretting his lunch. Christie told the crowd, "I believe we have become paralyzed - paralyzed by our desire to be loved." Later he said:
Tonight, we choose respect over love. We are not afraid. We are taking our country back.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison told MSNBC this week that "it's not whether you like someone to elect them president, it's whether that person will do the best for this country." Romney himself summoned a certain rough-necked sailor, telling Fox News, "Remember that Popeye line: 'I am what I am, and that's all what I am.'"
Thursday will be showdown between Pinocchio and Popeye.
Mitt will get his last major chance to do what his wife couldn't: to make America look past the lies and see a real person.
Making the Election About Race
The Welfare Gambit
The Case for Noblesse Oblige
The Electoral Art of War
Fact-Checking Is Not Enough
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1116 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Opinionator)
August 30, 2012 Thursday
Speech, Lies and Apathy
BYLINE: JASON STANLEY
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 1407 words
HIGHLIGHT: Blatant falsehoods like those of the Romney-Ryan campaign are only possible because Americans no longer expect to hear the truth.
We are all familiar with the "fact checkers" of the presidential campaign. Proud to be part of the fourth estate, these well-intentioned wonks uncover and unpack the various claims made by candidates, determining their veracity. But what if these efforts are in vain? And what if the campaigns themselves are not to be blamed? Is it possible that we are all culprits perpetuating this culture of "truthiness" on the political stage?
In previous columns for The Stone, I argued that the public's trust in public speech, whether by politicians or in the media, has disintegrated, and to such a degree that it has undermined the possibility of straightforward communication in the public sphere. The expectation is that any statement made either by a politician or by a media outlet is a false ideological distortion. As a result, no one blames politicians for making false statements or statements that obviously contradict that politician's beliefs. I believe that the unfolding presidential campaign provides a compelling demonstration of my previous claims.
Consider Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican National Convention last night. Ryan took President Obama to task for allegedly having "funneled out of Medicare" $716 billion dollars. It is simple for anyone with a computer to discover that the claim is problematic. As PolitiFact explains, the health care law involves anticipated reductions in future increases to private insurers. The distinction between "funneling money out" of a program and reducing expected future increases in payments to private insurance companies is subtle. However, the reason that Ryan's claim is decidedly odd is that his own budget plans included similar anticipated savings from Medicare. Furthermore, every one of the thousands of people cheering that line, as well as the millions watching, knew perfectly well that Ryan has made his career by arguing for funneling large amounts of money out of Medicare. Since Ryan's charge so manifestly contradicts his own beliefs, it is clear that the campaign assumes the thesis for which I have been arguing - that Americans no longer expect or care about candidates making honest assertions in the public sphere. They no longer expect consistency and honesty from politicians, and the savvy political campaigner recognizes that there is no cost to making statements that contradict even their most well-known beliefs.
Another argument for the thesis can be found in the Romney campaign's recent attacks on Obama's handling of welfare. These attacks have been much discussed, but it is worthwhile to look at the campaign strategy in detail to see how good campaign strategists exploit this relatively novel political environment.
Romney has broadcast advertisements that accuse the president of attempting to weaken the work requirements on welfare. The Romney campaign's strategy makes no sense as part of an overall case emphasizing the economic failings of the current administration. Emphasizing the weakening of work on welfare at least suggests that unemployment is the fault of the individual, rather than the administration's failed economic policies. At minimum, it is irrelevant to any claim about the president's job creation policies. Moreover, it is simple to discover that the charges are false.
As Glenn Kessler, the fact checker for The Washington Post, has explained, the Department of Health and Human Services is considering "issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets." Among the governors requesting waivers were two Republicans, including the Republican governor of Utah. No waiver has yet been granted, and such waivers come with demanding conditions. Why elevate an obscure issue that has as much to do with state's rights as it does with anything else to a centerpiece of a campaign that is supposedly focused on the weak economic record of the president, especially when the theme could even be construed as suggesting that the president has been in job creation?
An assertion is an attempt to transfer one's knowledge to one's audience. It is clearly not true that Obama is seeking to undermine work requirements on welfare. Everyone either knows that it's not true or can easily find it out by reading what independent fact checkers have said in easily available articles on the Internet. Furthermore, the Romney campaign knows this. So the Romney campaign is not intending to make an assertion. Given this, it's unfair to accuse the campaign of . As I have argued before, it may not be to assert or lie anymore in a presidential campaign. The trust required to support the existence of such speech acts is absent. The blatant falsehoods in Romney's campaign are possible only under conditions in which the target audience will not hold Romney accountable for false statements. Since the intended audience is not expected to believe the falsehoods, there is some other function of the Romney campaign's ad.
The purpose of Romney's ad campaign is to win over white working class voters, by connecting with what his campaign perceives as their values. That much is uncontroversial. How does the expression of obvious falsehoods about Obama and welfare manage to communicate to working class white voters that Romney shares their values? And which values does the Romney campaign thereby impute to working class white voters?
The available social science seems to support Thomas Edsall's recent analysis that white working class voters have at least in the past been motivated to go to the polls when race is made an issue via invocation of welfare. For example, for the 1991 National Race and Politics survey, conducted by the Survey Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley, the median response to the question "What percentage of all the poor people in America would you say are black?" the median response was 50 percent (the actual rate at the time was 29 percent). Subsequent studies found similar misperceptions. In his 1996 paper "Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media," the Princeton political scientist Martin Gilens showed that the media, in stories principally about poverty rather than race, vastly over-represents African-Americans in photographs. These misperceptions affect their attitude towards welfare. As Gilens noted: "The public's exaggerated association of race and poverty increases white Americans opposition to welfare. Whites who think the poor are mostly black are more likely to blame welfare recipients for their situation and less likely to support welfare than are those with more accurate perceptions of poverty." The Harvard sociologist Lawrence Bobo reports in a 2004 paper that fully 24 percent of whites in his study agreed with the claim that "Blacks prefer to live on welfare." One can safely assume that the well-funded Romney campaign found similar results in their own studies.
It seems likely that the architects of the ad campaign want to communicate to working class white voters the message that Romney shares their opposition to certain kinds of welfare programs, ones connected in their minds to African-Americans. Given public misperceptions about the connection between race, poverty and willingness to work, and given the race of the president, it also suggests that it is the president who is out of touch with this constituency. Much of this message would be awkward to communicate by means of speech acts governed by a norm of truth: in other words, they would be embarrassing to say.
How would the Romney campaign deliver this message by making only true statements? The strategy of the campaign is evidence for the claims I have made in previous columns about the erosion of trust, because the strategy of this ad campaign takes these points for granted. The Romney campaign knows that there is no cost at all to making obviously false statements in order to convey an alternative message. Claims in the public domain are now routinely treated as intentional distortions of facts to promote ideologies; distortions or misrepresentations justified by the need to "counterbalance" false claims from the other side. The Romney campaign is not at fault for making false statements. They are just astutely taking advantage of the political environment in which all campaigning now takes place.
The Veil of Opulence
Political Disagreement, Revisited
On Political Disagreement
The Living Word
Arguing About Language
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1117 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 30, 2012 Thursday
Live Updates From the Republican National Convention
BYLINE: THE NEW YORK TIMES
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 5624 words
HIGHLIGHT: The Times will be providing updates and analysis from Tampa on our live dashboard. You can also follow along on Twitter @thecaucus, or follow our list of Times journalists covering the convention.
The Times will be providing updates and analysis from Tampa on our live dashboard. You can also follow along on Twitter @thecaucus, or follow our list of Times journalists covering the convention.
0:12 A.M. | Convention Wrap
And with that, we have come to the end of the Republican National Convention. Join us next week in Charlotte, N.C., as Democrats take their turn.
-
11:25 P.M. | Fact-Checking Romney
Mitt Romney said in his convention speech that President Obama's "policies have not helped create jobs, they have depressed them," repeated claims that the president had gone on an "apology tour" for America, and warned that his Medicare cuts would "hurt today's seniors" - assertions that have already been labeled false or misleading during the campaign.
With his statement about Mr. Obama's jobs record, Mr. Romney joined other Republicans who have taken a dim view of the president's stimulus law - but ignored the findings of many economists. Just this week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that when the impact of the stimulus peaked in 2010, it was responsible for creating between 900,000 and 4.7 million jobs and for lowering the unemployment rate by between .4 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points. The stimulus bolstered the nation's economic output by between .7 percent and 4.1 percent, the budget office found.
Mr. Romney also made his oft-repeated, widely debunked charge that Mr. Obama had gone on an "apology tour" about America, an accusation Mr. Romney feels so strongly about that he titled a 2010 book in which he laid out his own worldview "No Apology."
But independent fact-checkers have called the charge a distortion, and it is hard to find evidence that Mr. Obama ever said that he was "sorry" for the United States. Even in his speeches after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Obama offered a strong defense of American policies, including the war in Afghanistan, which was growing increasingly unpopular in the rest of the world.
And Mr. Romney's claim that Mr. Obama's $716 billion in Medicare cuts would "hurt today's seniors" is not accurate. The cuts, which are part of the 2010 health care law, would actually cut reimbursements to hospitals and insurers, not benefits for older Americans, by $716 billion over the coming decade.
-
11:20 P.M. | Romney Says Obama Raised Taxes on Middle Class
Mitt Romney said in his speech that unlike the president, he would not raise taxes on the middle class.
But President Obama has signed into law a succession of tax cuts benefiting middle-income Americans, including the "Making Work Pay" credit, which was part of the stimulus package, in his first two years, and the two-percentage-point cut in workers' payroll taxes for this year and last year.
Additional tax cuts have been created or expanded for middle-income taxpayers to offset the costs of college and children, and for small-business owners. Also Mr. Obama has called for extending the Bush-era income tax rates, which otherwise expire Dec. 31, for incomes up to $250,000 for couples, $200,000 for individuals. Mr. Romney and Republicans insist the rates for all income be extended.
-
10:53 P.M. | Protesters Disrupt Romney's Speech
For the second day in a row, the Republican National Convention was interrupted by female protesters, this time just as Mitt Romney was beginning his address to accept the nomination of his political party.
The two protesters held pink cloth banners and were quickly drowned out by the delegates' chants of "U.S.A." They were tackled and hustled roughly out of the arena by security, while Mr. Romney slowed his speech, then paused. As they left, another heckler shouted from the rafters directly across the Tampa Bay Times Forum arena from the nominee.
The disruption was over in seconds, but it provided another distraction for Mr. Romney and his campaign.
Alli McCracken, a CodePink spokeswoman, said the group of four protesters held up two banners, reading "Democracy Is Not a Business" and "People Over Profits."
On Wednesday night, CodePink protesters gained access to the arena using credentials from disgruntled Ron Paul supporters. Asked how they pulled it off this time, Ms. McCracken would only say, "We have our ways."
-
10:40 P.M. | Romney Makes an Entrance and Accepts Nomination
The room inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum may be the warmest Mitt Romney will encounter all campaign, and he made a point of working it.
Mr. Romney made his way to the stage slowly, seeming to savor every meeting. He hugged Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, and kissed the wives of delegates.
"Born Free" by Kid Rock, his campaign theme song, blared through the room: a slower, more-muted version.
But Mr. Romney didn't waste any time after taking the stage.
His first words?
"Mr. Chairman and delegates, I accept your nomination for president of the United States."
-
10:32 P.M. | Rubio Focuses on Romney Family's Modest Origins
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida described Mitt Romney on Thursday as someone whose family came from poverty, saying he was part of America's story of "everyday people" who do extraordinary things.
Mr. Rubio drew the honor of introducing Mr. Romney at the Republican convention. In doing so, he sought to write a new personal narrative for one of the wealthiest-ever presidential candidates: one who has struggled to connect with middle-class voters.
In Mr. Rubio's telling, Mr. Romney's wealth - he is worth more than $250 million - is not the central part of his life's story.
Instead, Mr. Rubio focused on Mr. Romney's father, noting that he was an immigrant whose family came to America to escape revolution.
"They struggled through poverty and the Great Depression. And yet, he rose to be an admired businessman, and public servant," Mr. Rubio said of George Romney, Mr. Romney's father. "And in November, his son, Mitt Romney, will be elected president of the United States."
Mr. Rubio's introduction provided one of the most high-profile platforms for the first-term senator, who was considered as a potential vice-presidential choice for Mr. Romney this year.
The senator used his time to tell his own story, too, saying his family immigrated to America from Cuba for the hope of a better life.
"My dad was a bartender," he said. "My mom was a cashier, a maid and a stock clerk at Kmart. They never made it big. They were never rich. And yet they were successful. Because just a few decades removed from hopelessness, they made possible for us all the things that had been impossible for them."
He said the "essence of the American miracle" is that "we're exceptional not because we have more rich people here."
But the primary goal in the remarks was to provide Mr. Romney with a prime-time introduction that would help close the gap with President Obama among those who say they think the candidates empathize with them.
"He's a devoted husband, father and grandfather, a generous member of his community and church," Mr. Rubio said. "Everywhere he's been, he's volunteered his time and talent to make things better for those around him."
-
10:25 P.M. | In the CNN Control Room
The political conventions run for hours each day, much of the time filled with speeches from politicians trying to rise from obscurity: state legislators, mayors, lieutenant governors.
But most people sitting at home would never know it because the networks carefully select which portions to broadcast.
But how do they make the call of when to cut away from the convention program, which campaigns spend months scripting, staging and producing?
Inside the CNN control room on Thursday night, a team of producers sat in front of a half-dozen television monitors. A switchboard lighted up with the names and initials of various correspondents and anchors spread out across the convention hall: AC for Anderson Cooper, Wolf for Wolf Blitzer and Erin for Erin Burnett.
From that room, they made game-time calls about what to broadcast and what to ignore and substitute with programming and analysis of their own.
A speech by the Staples chief executive, who testified to Mitt Romney's financial acumen? Cut.
A speech by the former Massachusetts lieutenant governor? Cut.
Remarks from a Mormon pastor who worked with Mr. Romney when he served as a bishop? In.
A musical performance by Taylor Hicks of "American Idol" fame? In.
Sam Feist, CNN's Washington bureau chief, explained.
"We want to put together the most compelling program," he said, "and help people learn something about Mitt Romney."
-
10:21 P.M. | From the Morgue: Balloon Drop for Nixon, 1960
-
10:16 P.M. | Clint and the Empty Chair
Do you feel lucky, punk?
Clint Eastwood, the actor, offered an odd, rambling endorsement of Mitt Romney, pretending to have an off-color conversation with an imaginary President Obama sitting by his side.
"We own this country," he said. "Politicians are employees of ours. When somebody doesn't do the job, we gotta let em go."
Just after 10 p.m., there he was onstage, Dirty Harry himself.
"Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you made when you were running for election?" he said, jokingly talking to an empty chair next to his podium.
He asked the invisible Mr. Obama why he didn't close the terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
"What do you mean shut up?" he said, continuing to talk to his imaginary friend.
A moment later, he stopped again, saying, "What do you want me to tell Mr. Romney?"
"I can't tell him that. He can't do that to himself," Mr. Eastwood said, apparently referring to a sexual act.
"You're getting as bad as Biden," Mr. Eastwood said.
Mr. Eastwood had not been announced in advance, listed instead as a mystery speaker.
All day long, convention organizers had refused to confirm rumors that the "to be announced" speaker on the schedule would be the gravely-voiced Republican star. Aides to Mr. Romney joked that would spoil the surprise.
After going much longer than expected - as indicated by the urgently flashing red light at the back of the room - Mr. Eastwood gave in to urging from the crowd to say his famous line.
"Go ahead," he said, and the crowd chanted, "Make my day!"
-
9:53 P.M. | Olympians Offer Support
Thunderous chants of "U.S.A., U.S.A." greeted the parade of Olympic athletes who came to the stage at the Republican National Convention to hail the leader of the 2002 Salt Lake City Games, Mitt Romney. But the testimonials offered by the athletes and an earlier address by Kerry Healey, the former Massachusetts lieutenant governor, were notably incomplete.
Mike Eruzione, captain of the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" Olympic hockey team, said the scandals and budgetary problems that preceded Mr. Romney's arrival in Salt Lake City had put the Olympics, "not just those games, but the Olympics as an institution," in peril.
Mr. Romney "drew a line in the sand and said the 2002 Games would have highest standard of ethics and integrity," he said, offering a rousing endorsement of the Republican nominee for president.
"We need new leadership, and we need it now," said Kim Rhode, an Olympic trap shooter.
Ms. Healey spoke glowingly of how Mr. Romney had "quickly assembled a cabinet of the best and the brightest," and went on to four successful years of Massachusetts governor.
Left unspoken was one of the critical ways Mr. Romney turned around the Olympics, a quick but sharp ramping up of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee's lobbying presence in Washington and a resulting flood of federal dollars into the games, which dwarfed the government contributions given to any prior games.
Ms. Healey did not tell the assembled Republicans that among the best and brightest were some of the most progressive voices in the state, including Douglas Foy, one of the most prominent environmental lawyers in New England.
Nor did she mention Mr. Romney's most notable achievement as governor: the Massachusetts health care law.
-
9:45 P.M. | Scott Romney in the Spotlight
The Romney family has chosen its spokesman for the night: Scott Romney, Mitt's older brother.
Scott has dashed from network to network on the convention floor here. He just finished an interview with Fox News. Now, he is talking to CNN.
"I couldn't sleep last night," he told Dana Bash of CNN, about his excitement.
He is not shying from the personal, recalling how his brother called him "every night offering advice on how to solve my problems."
The rest of the Romney family remains in an elevated seating box, their every move carefully watched, but their words unheard.
-
9:42 P.M. | From the Morgue: Support for Reagan, 1968
-
9:36 P.M. | 'We're a Good Bunch of People'
Mitt Romney plans to discuss his faith in his speech tonight, and conventiongoers got a preview Thursday night, when a member of Mr. Romney's church delivered the invocation, and another friend and church member shared stories from Mr. Romney's time as a lay leader and stake president.
Shirley Taylor, a delegate from Idaho, could not be more delighted - or surprised.
"I was so excited," said Ms. Taylor, a Mormon, from the convention floor. "I didn't think they would do that because he's been so persecuted for being a Mormon. I never expected that. I was amazed."
She added, eagerly: "Maybe someday people will understand that we're a good bunch of people and not a cult. And a fun bunch of people. We have good clean fun, without any drugs, alcohol, coffee or tea."
-
9:35 P.M. | Delegates Mix and Mingle on Convention Floor
Hey! Quiet! Shhhh, can't you see Newt and Callista Gingrich are speaking?
Yeah, but there's Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Governor! Please pose for a picture.
And so Timothy Roth, a delegate from El Paso, Texas, tuned out the speeches a few dozen yards away to loop an arm around Mr. Perry.
"From my perspective, the networking is important," said Mr. Roth, an economic adviser in the Reagan administration. "I just spoke with someone who also worked in the Reagan administration" representing a different state, he said, whom he had never met.
Whoa! Isn't that Phyllis Schlafly, the tireless anti-abortion campaigner? Never mind that Craig Romney is speaking onstage.
"Phyllis, I got your note, so wonderful to see you here,'' said Donald Ely, an alternate delegate from Sunbury, Pa., thrusting out a hand.
Ms. Schlafly, who said she was at her 16th Republican convention, said it was more fun to circulate the floor, greeting old friends and meeting new ones than to sit glued to a seat through hours of speeches.
"I like to walk around and see my friends from other states," she said. "I just talked to Kris Kobach," the Kansas secretary of state.
In the crowded aisle where the South Carolina delegation was seated close to the stage, Jennifer Nassour, a former chairwoman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, got a hug from Gov. Nikki Haley.
Jeb Bush's words from the stage fell, at least for a while, on deaf ears. "As someone in the same age group, it's so wonderful to have you in the position you're in," Ms. Nassour, 40, told Ms. Haley, also 40.
"Thank you very much," Ms. Haley said. "It's great to have women your age."
"If we can do anything for you, just let us know," Ms. Nassour told her.
Much of the Colorado delegation seemed to be glued to their iPhones and BlackBerrys as someone was speaking about something.
"It's a scripted show,'' said John Warnick, a delegate from Breckenridge, Colo. "You can see the teleprompter. Everyone knows that.''
From his line of sight, the large text read from the stage was easily visible, the big words scrolling up like the tiny text on his handheld screen.
-
9:17 P.M. | Video Feature: Key Speeches From the R.N.C.
While we wait for Mitt Romney's speech, check out the key speeches from the past two nights of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.
-
9:17 P.M. | 'You Didn't Build That' - Front and Center
Fact-checkers have repeatedly criticized Mitt Romney's campaign for making an ad that spliced President Obama's words so that it sounded as though he was bashing small businesses.
On Thursday, with tens of millions of people watching, the campaign once again played the ad.
At a rally this summer, Mr. Obama said: "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Independent analysts have said he was clearly saying that "somebody else" made the "roads and bridges" that he referred to.
But in the ad - played on the big screen in the forum here - the roads and bridges line was gone.
The resulting line - "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" - makes it sound as if Mr. Obama was suggesting that "somebody else" built a business.
Democrats have long cried foul, but Mr. Romney's campaign has always refused to concede. In fact, the phrase has become perhaps the centerpiece of Mr. Romney's campaign.
On Thursday, it was no different.
-
9:14 P.M. | Romney Friend Puts Bain in Positive Light
Bob White, Mitt Romney's Bain Capital business partner and self-described wing man, took to the stage to testify that the soon-to-be presidential nominee was not a rapacious vulture capitalist, but a decisive leader and conscientious investor.
The contrasts to Republican views of President Obama were left unspoken - but they seemed plain as day.
"When things went wrong, we would not blame others," Mr. White said. "He took decisive action. Mitt never hesitated. He made the tough decisions, coalesced the team and moved forward."
Critics of Mr. Romney's days at Bain might latch onto Mr. White's story of how his friend was called back to Bain when the parent, Bain & Company, was teetering.
"I will never forget when he said: 'Bob, 1,000 employees and their families depend on us. We can't let them down,'" he said.
The convention turned to Tom Stemberg, founder of the office supply company Staples, to really stick it to the Bain critics, and Mr. Obama specifically, whom he said had leveled "fiction, half-truths and downright lies."
"Why would an administration who can't create any jobs demonize someone who did?" Mr. Stemberg asked.
-
9:09 P.M. | A Portrait of Compassion, Without Much Audience
A procession of people who Mitt Romney helped as a lay pastor with the Mormon Church took the stage to offer moving testimonials to Mr. Romney's charity and compassion. It is part of a long-promised effort by the campaign to present something besides the political and business side of Mr. Romney at the convention, a personal side that has been largely absent in this campaign.
That said, these speakers appeared early in the evening, hours before Mr. Romney was to take the stage. There was a time when these moments would, at least in theory, be seen in millions of Americans homes. But networks have cut back their coverage to an hour a night, and that opening hour is still many moments away. Complicating things for Mr. Romney: The convention was shortened one night because of Isaac, the tropical storm-hurricane-tropical storm. All of which raises a question: How many people outside the hall were really watching?
-
8:59 P.M. | Terrible Towels With a Twist
What's a delegate got to do to stand out these days?
Come equipped with a colorful and state-appropriate costume, for starters.
To wit:
The Michigan delegation rocked their front and center perch with oversize blue foam mittens in the shape of their state. ("Don't Mess With 'The Mitt'!" the slogan read.)
The Hawaiian delegation brought purple and white leis, and decorated its sign with real Anthurium flowers, which are native to the state's Big Island.
And the Pennsylvania delegation waved red "Romney/Ryan" towels - just like the Pittsburgh Steelers' "Terrible Towels." But these are red, rather than the traditional black and gold to appease fans of the state's other major team.
"We had to compromise for all of the Phillies fans," said Mike Barley, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Republican Party.
-
8:50 P.M. | Church Members Describe Romney's Role as Pastor
Grant Bennett, a friend of Mitt Romney's, testified to Mr. Romney's role as pastor of his Mormon church.
The detailed testimonial is one of the rare peeks inside Mr. Romney's religious life, as described in this story by the Times reporter Jodi Kantor.
"I was Mitt's assistant when he was our pastor," Mr. Bennett said during remarks at the convention. "I had a front row seat, and it was marvelous to behold."
Mr. Bennett described Mr. Romney's tending to people who requested his help.
"Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction," Mr. Bennett said. "Unemployment, sickness, financial distress, loneliness. Mitt prayed and counseled with church members seeking direction."
Mr. Bennett then introduced Ted and Pat Oparowsky, a couple whose dying son was befriended by Mr. Romney when he was a church pastor.
"The true measure of a man is revealed in his actions during times of trouble - the quiet hospital room of a dying boy, with no camera and no reporters," Mr. Oparowsky said. "This is the time to make that assessment."
Pat Oparowsky described Mr. Romney's visits with her son, who died of cancer. "We will be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern," she said.
-
8:46 P.M. | From the Morgue: Cameras and Backpacks, 1968
-
8:36 P.M. | Jeb Bush Presses Education Agenda
Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, turned a policy spotlight on an issue that has played almost no role in the presidential election so far: education.
Pressing for public school choice, Mr. Bush joked that there are dozens of kinds of milk, low-fat milk, no-fat milk, fruit-flavored milk.
"They even make milk for people who can't drink milk," he joked, but parents in the public school system largely have no choice in the school their children can attend.
The speech was meant to appeal to minority voters, who are often the ones most frustrated with the public school system. But it also highlighted how little attention bread-and-butter domestic policy issues have taken beyond the grand themes of taxes, budgets and entitlement programs like Medicare.
"Because he is a former governor, Mitt Romney understands that states must lead this national movement," Mr. Bush said.
The campaign has had its education moments. During an awkward moment in Philadelphia, Mr. Romney squared off with parents and staff pressing for smaller class sizes, an expensive proposition Mr. Romney did not embrace. President Obama has pressed for - but failed to attain - educational aid for state and local governments.
The one off-key moment may have come from the Florida teacher Mr. Bush brought with him onstage.
"I've seen too many good teachers come and go, mainly due to poor working conditions and little pay," Sean Duffy said.
In Campaign 2012, President Obama pressed for federal funds to build and renovate schools and help struggling local governments with teacher salaries.
-
8:24 P.M. | Interactive Graphic: Romney Campaign Promises
Even if Mitt Romney makes no new promises in his speech to the Republican National Convention, he has already promised a lot to voters. An interactive graphic highlights sentences containing the phrase "I will" taken from Mr. Romney's campaign speeches.
-
8:13 P.M. | Jeb Bush to Obama: 'Stop Blaming Your Predecessor'
Very rarely do convention speakers go off script. When they do, it's always interesting.
For Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida and the brother of former President George W. Bush, the prepared remarks were all about education policy.
But when he came up on the stage, he began by coming to the defense of his brother, who is often blamed by President Obama for having run the economy into the ground.
"It is time to stop blaming your predecessor for your failed economic policies," Mr. Bush said, speaking to Mr. Obama.
"You were dealt a tough hand. You were dealt a tough hand. But your policies have not worked," Mr. Bush said. "In your fourth year of your presidency, a real leader would accept responsibility for his actions, and you haven't done that."
The crowd applauded, and Mr. Bush paused before saying, "Now that I've gotten that off my chest," and he continued to his prepared remarks.
-
8:12 P.M. | Hispanic Outreach
Craig Romney played the one-Romney-man Hispanic outreach arm, after a video montage of elected Republican Hispanics with an extended opening passage in Spanish.
His English address was not much longer, speaking on his father's behalf and pledging his family's help to get back on track.
The Republican National Convention has featured several Hispanic speakers, including Gov. Luis G. Fortuño of Puerto Rico; Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico; Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada; and tonight, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.
The question remains, will the imagery work to eat into President Obama's overwhelming lead in the polls with Latino voters? Mel Martinez, the former Florida senator, is sanguine.
"They've done a phenomenal job, and you know why? It's real," he said. "It isn't just sticking a few Hispanics on the floor and trying to get the camera to notice them. It's about the people on the podium."
But Matthew Dowd, the strategist that mapped out President George W. Bush's successful efforts to win over Hispanic voters, said Mitt Romney will have to do more than show Hispanic faces. He needs tonight to offer them tangible policies that appeal to them and will counter the anti-immigration sentiments sometimes expressed by his party.
"You can't win Latino votes with imagery," he said. "All I have seen is imagery without substantive outreach."
-
7:59 P.M. | From the Morgue: Balloon Target Practice, 1972
-
7:56 P.M. | The Gingriches' Tag Team Speech
Republicans love to bash Jimmy Carter almost as much as they love to bash President Obama.
Newt Gingrich - a fierce rival of Mitt Romney's for the nomination - and his wife, Callista, did both Thursday night.
Assigned to the task of honoring the memory of Ronald Reagan, the Gingriches chose to do so by lumping Mr. Obama with Mr. Carter, saying both "took our nation down a path that in four years weakened America's confidence in itself and our hope for a better future."
In ping-pong fashion, Mr. Gingrich and his wife offered thoughts about Mr. Reagan's legacy, concluding that he should be remembered for overcoming the mess that Mr. Carter left him.
Likewise, they said, Mr. Romney will be charged with fixing the economy after Mr. Obama leaves.
"Governor Romney will return America to work, and to the principles that are at the core of President Reagan's legacy," Callista Gingrich said.
Her husband added: "Each of us must do our part now to ensure that America remains, in the tradition of President Reagan, a land of freedom, hope and opportunity."
-
7:51 P.M. | Highlighting Bain
If the Democrats thought the Republicans would avoid mentioning Bain Capital at their convention, they were wrong.
The final night of the convention will feature two videos highlighting the success of Bain, the private equity firm that is at the center of President Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney's business record.
In addition, employees of companies bought by Bain will testify to its successes. One of those companies is Wesley Jessen, a manufacturer of contact lenses.
"Because of Bain Capital's attention and management, Wesley Jessen roared back," Ray Fernandez, a former employee, will say, according to prepared remarks. "Workers like me were inspired by what we saw - and our careers thrived."
Mr. Obama and his allies have condemned Mr. Romney's work at Bain Capital, accusing him of moving jobs overseas and of profiting off the misery of others when companies were shut down.
Speakers at the Republican convention beg to differ. Among them is Tom Stemberg, the founder of Staples, an office supply company that received help from Bain.
"You can imagine my dismay, when I see this White House and their campaign demonizing Mitt Romney. Demonizing Bain Capital. Demonizing the private equity industry that created so many new jobs," Mr. Stemberg says. "Over and over again: Fiction. Half-truths. Downright lies."
The debate will no doubt continue as the Democrats attack Mr. Romney's experience at Bain Capital in the weeks to come. But Thursday night, Bain's supporters fought back.
-
7:41 P.M. | Tim Pawlenty, the Man Who Wasn't There
Tim Pawlenty came close to being the star of the last two Republican conventions.
Close, but not close enough.
On Thursday evening, as Mitt Romney prepared to formally accept his party's nomination for president, Mr. Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, walked through the convention hall, largely unnoticed.
"Who is that guy?" one Republican delegate asked as he walked by. Another woman asked to take her picture next to him. Another man said he liked what he heard when Mr. Pawlenty visited Alabama as a candidate.
Asked what he would do on behalf of Mr. Romney in the next few weeks, Mr. Pawlenty seemed surprised at the question.
"I'm just a volunteer," he said, "so I've got other stuff I've got to do. So as my schedule allows, I'll go out and do surrogate speaking."
That's a far cry from what might have been if Mr. Romney had picked him, instead of Representative Paul D. Ryan, to be his running mate this year. Senator John McCain of Arizona also passed over Mr. Pawlenty in 2008.
The fact that he did not get picked allows Mr. Pawlenty to be a bit more honest with questions. Asked the chances that Mr. Romney might win Minnesota, he shrugged.
"It remains a state that tilts toward Democrats, but it's not inconceivable that a Republican could win there," he said. "We have in the past. Not in the presidential recently."
A few minutes later, a nearby crowd surged around Mr. Ryan as he made his way into a television booth for an evening interview. Mr. Pawlenty answered one more question - and shook another hand - and he was off, into the crowd, largely unnoticed.
-
7:28 P.M. | Campaigns Hit the Road Over Long Weekend
So where to from here?
Labor Day weekend fills the lull between the end of the Republican National Convention on Thursday and the start of its Democratic counterpart on Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C., but neither campaign is pausing for breath.
Labor Day might once have been the unofficial kickoff of presidential campaigns, but in the era of the yearlong primary fight, that schedule is as quaint as marching in parades to get voters' attention.
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan will spend Friday together, starting with a send-off rally in Lakeland, Fla., east of Tampa along the Interstate 4 corridor, a swing region in a battleground state. From there, they hop to Richmond, Va., for another joint appearance.
President Obama, in the meantime, is beginning his own itinerary of battleground states on Saturday, rolling out what he calls a "Road to Charlotte" tour. First stop is outside Des Moines, a continuation of Mr. Obama's saturation campaigning in Iowa, which included a three-day bus tour this month. He visits Sioux City, Iowa, later in the day.
On Saturday, Mr. Ryan has a public event in Columbus, Ohio (the site of the big game between Ohio State University and his alma mater, Miami of Ohio), while Mr. Romney appears in Cincinnati. The Republican ticket returns to Florida later that day for a rally in Jacksonville.
Mr. Obama will campaign Sunday morning on the quad at the University of Colorado in the liberal city of Boulder. He flies to Toledo, Ohio, that afternoon.
If it seems as though the two presidential campaigns are dancing around each other, shuffling and dodging in a tight ring defined by a handful of states, that is likely to be the status quo until they put on the real gloves at a series of debates in October.
-
6:57 P.M. | Hatch Discusses Romney's Reticence to Talk Religion
Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah believes he knows why Mitt Romney has been so reticent to talk about his faith and work in the Mormon Church, and Mr. Hatch, Mr. Romney's fellow Mormon, is opening up about it.
"Mitt was a bishop," Mr. Hatch said in an interview. "One reason why he's been so reticent to talk about it, you put in usually 30 hours a week as a bishop to help people with a myriad of problems, everything from personal problems to economic problems, psychological problems, to spiritual problems, and you do that voluntarily without disclosing how you're helping people. There's a reticence to breach any confidentiality, and it's hard to talk about it because of that."
Later, Mr. Romney became a stake president, leading other congregations, approving "temple recommends," which allow Mormons in good standing to take part in Mormon temple spiritual activities, "and a whole raft of other things," Mr. Hatch said.
Members and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have held their pride in check as the first Mormon to rise this high in United States politics continues his ascent. But the anti-Mormonism that church officials feared as the presidential campaign began has largely failed to materialize, and Mr. Hatch allowed himself a moment of reflection. He credited their religion for Mr. Romney's leadership skills and successes.
"We bring up our young kids to be independent, self-reliant, to live good lives, to serve their fellow men and women," he said.
-
6:56 P.M. | From the Morgue: A Prohibition Protest in Chicago, 1932
-
6:24 P.M. | Romney's Speech to Highlight His Story and Frustration With Obama
Mitt Romney will call upon disappointed and disaffected Americans to turn President Obama out of office in November, arguing in his convention speech that the president has failed to deliver the hope that he promised four years ago.
In excerpts of remarks he will deliver Thursday night, Mr. Romney expresses sadness in what he says was Mr. Obama's inability to confront the nation's economic problems. And he urges voters to reflect on whether they remain as excited by Mr. Obama's election as they did four years ago. Read more
-
LOAD-DATE: August 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1118 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 30, 2012 Thursday
Ryan's Speech Echoed in a 'Super PAC' Ad
BYLINE: NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 266 words
HIGHLIGHT: Crossroads Generation posted an advertisement on Thursday afternoon that tracked a line from Representative Paul D. Ryan's Wednesday night speech with almost eerie precision.
One of the biggest lines Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin uncorked during his acceptance speech Wednesday night was his appeal to the disaffected young voters who were once among President Obama's staunchest supporters.
"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life," Mr. Ryan said.
In a matter of hours, Mr. Ryan's message was echoed by Crossroads Generation, an offshoot of the Karl Rove-founded "super PAC" American Crossroads, Young Republican National Federation and other Republican youth groups. On Thursday afternoon, Crossroads Generation posted an advertisement that tracked Mr. Ryan's words with almost eerie precision, ending with a young man tearing a poster of Mr. Obama off his wall.
The group and the campaign are barred by law from coordinating their advertising or spending with each other. A Ryan spokesman said the campaign had no knowledge of the ad until it went online. Derek Flowers, the executive director of Crossroads Generation, said that the advertisement had actually been in production since before Mitt Romney picked Mr. Ryan as his running mate.
"We were pleasantly surprised to hear the line in his speech last night and so decided there's no better time to release our ad," Mr. Flowers said.
New Groups Form to Raise Millions for Democrats
Crossroads Sets $120 Million Goal to Defeat Obama
White House Rebuffs Calls for a Special Prosecutor
New Ad Attacks Obama on Federal Debt
'Stay Classy,' Crossroads Admonishes Obama Camp
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1119 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Learning Network)
August 30, 2012 Thursday
Election Unit, Part 3: The Campaign Strategy
BYLINE: MICHAEL GONCHAR
SECTION: EDUCATION
LENGTH: 1452 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mini-Unit 3 of our Election Unit is about researching campaign strategies. The unit includes lesson activities, projects and useful handouts.
This week is Election Week on our blog, and each day we've published a new section of our Election Unit.
On Monday we gavean overview of the entire unit, including goals, essential questions and projects. Tuesday's post suggests ways for students to learn about the candidates by working on research teams to prepare candidate profiles directed at youth voters. Wednesday's post explores the issues at stake this election year. Below, we focus on the way the candidates have been running their campaigns.
Our guiding question for this unit is How Would the Presidential Campaigns Change If the Voting Age Were 13? Having your students answer it by posting responses to our blog enters them in a contest, the winners of which will have a chance to be published on The Learning Network and, perhaps, elsewhere on NYTimes.com.
Mini-Unit 3: The Campaign
Essential Question 3: How Do Presidential Candidates Try to Win the Election?
Projects: Argumentative Essay and Candidate Speech
Overview: For this third mini-unit, students take a step back from the candidates and issues, and instead take a closer look at how the candidates run their campaigns. (For a full list of the Common Core State Standards this unit will address, please see our introductory post.)
Students learn about how candidates use different strategies to appeal to voters and win the needed 270 votes in the Electoral College. They analyze different aspects of President Obama's and Mitt Romney's campaigns and write argumentative essays making the case for which candidate is running a more effective campaign.
As a second or alternative project, students could focus on one particular campaign strategy: oratorical skills and speech writing. For this project, students write a speech in the voice of their assigned candidate in preparation for the mock election.
Writing Prompt: How do candidates try to win an election?
What strategies do they use? How do they try to sway voters? What do they think goes on behind the scenes in the campaign offices? Students write what they know about how candidates try to win elections. Then the class shares their ideas.
Analyzing a Campaign Ad: As a class, watch two short television commercials, one representing each campaign. The YouTube channels for Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney are probably the best places to find current ads. If you would rather analyze a commercial from a past presidential election as a way to practice ad analysis, then The Living Room Candidate is a useful resource for finding and viewing presidential campaign commercials from 1952 to 2008.
For each commercial, write down what images you see in the ad. Are there photographs of people or places? Are they in color or black and white? Are they vivid or grainy? If there are words written on the screen, what do they say? Then watch the commercial again. What sounds do you hear? Is there a speaker or narrator? Is there music?
Then think about this: What do the producers of the commercial want you to feel and think? What makes you say that? Do you think the commercial is effective? Why or why not? You may want to use this television commercial analysis chart. (Click on the image to download a PDF version.)
Campaign Strategy Research: Working in pairs, small groups or individually, students research one or more campaign strategies. If you want your students to have the opportunity to get up out of their seats, you might consider setting up research stations around the classroom for students to learn about multiple topics.
You might want to use the handout below to help guide student research. (Click on the image to download a PDF version.) It asks students to take notes on how the Romney and Obama campaigns are using a given campaign strategy, and then to analyze how effectively they think the campaign is using the strategy. This handout might be particularly useful if your students will be writing an argumentative essay comparing the two campaigns.
Resources for Campaign Strategy Research: Below is a list of useful resources for researching four different types of campaign strategies. Many of these resources are videos, Web sites, or interactive multimedia, and therefore require that students have access to computers.
Fund-Raising, Super PACs and Campaign War Chests
Times Topics: "Campaign Finance (Super PACs)"
TimesCast Video: "What's a 'Super PAC'?"
Infographic: "Tallying Up Presidential Campaign Finances"
Article: "'Super PACs' Let Strategists Off the Leash"
State-by-State Polling and Electoral Math
Infographic: "The Electoral Map: Building a Path to Victory" (Note: Students can actually click and drag toss-up states to create their own possibilities.)
Infographic: "Swing State Polls"
The FiveThirtyEight Blog: a wealth of information about polling and projections
Campaign Speeches and Debates
Infographic: "Selective Storytelling From the Stump"
Official Barack Obama YouTube Channel: home for Obama campaign commercials, speeches and campaign videos
Official Mitt Romney YouTube Channel: home for Romney campaign commercials, speeches, and campaign videos
Television and Internet Campaigns
Official Barack Obama YouTube Channel: home for Obama campaign commercials, speeches, and campaign videos
Official Mitt Romney YouTube Channel: home for Romney campaign commercials, speeches, and campaign videos
Official Mitt Romney Website
Official Barack Obama Website
Project 1 | Argumentative Essay: Students write an argumentative essay answering the question, Which campaign is running a better campaign? Students choose at least two campaign strategies and compare the effectiveness of the Romney and Obama campaigns (for example, compare Internet sites, commercials, debate performances). Most of the research resources above do not single out youth voters; however, you may still decide you want to narrow the question to match with the unit theme, so the question would become, Which campaign is running a better campaign aimed at youth voters?
Students can use their notes from the research handout (PDF) above to help them find evidence to use in their essays.
Project 2 | Campaign Speech: In preparation for the mock election, students write a campaign speech directed toward youth voters - in many ways, a persuasive essay about why young people should vote for "me."
One way to organize the speech is to have students create a theme or thesis that holds the speech together, and then choose a few of the candidate's positions on issues (already researched in Mini-Unit 2 of this unit) to support the overall thesis. We provide a complete lesson on writing a candidate speech, including ways to think about messaging, oratory, and emotion. In addition, the Purdue Online Writing Lab is a helpful resource for using rhetorical strategies for persuasion, like logos, ethos and pathos, to write a more effective speech.
The candidate speech assignment gives students an opportunity to play with rhetoric and language while writing in a candidate's voice. Some students may struggle with that kind of open-ended writing assignment, so seeing a basic sample outline might help them flesh out their ideas:
Theme: Real Solutions for Real Problems
Issue: Tax Policy
Issue: Immigration
Issue: Health Care
Presentation: Students present their speeches in class. If you plan to hold a mock election, you can have the class select whom they want to represent the candidates at the main event based on the quality of the speeches. With a large class, students can present within smaller groups, and then those groups select who will present in front of the class.
You may find it helpful for students to provide peer feedback using the handout below for the campaign speeches. (Click on the image to download a PDF version.) Having written notes can also help students pick who they want to represent them at the mock election.
Related: The Learning Network has additional lessons on campaign strategies if you want to explore the topic in more depth:
Lesson | Follow the Money: Understanding 'Super PAC' Spending in Politics
Lesson | The United States of Numeracy: The Math of a Presidential Campaign
Lesson | On the Stump: Examining the Form and Function of Campaign Speeches
On Friday we will post the Election Unit's final mini-unit, which lets students decide who they think should be the next president based on the research they completed. Our Friday post also includes instructions on how to hold a mock election in your school.
Election Unit, Part 4: What Do You Think?
Election Unit, Part 2: What Are the Issues?
Election Unit, Part 1: Who Are the Candidates?
Our Election 2012 Unit: An Overview
How Would the Presidential Campaigns Change if the Voting Age Were 13?
LOAD-DATE: September 25, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1120 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 30, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
SECTION: A section; Pg. A05
LENGTH: 1117 words
The details of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention are not known, but he's been road-testing various claims about President Obama's record for months. Here are five dubious assertions that he frequently makes on the campaign trail or in his campaign advertisements that he might repeat Thursday night.
"If the president is reelected, he will succeed in raiding $716 billion from Medicare - from the trust fund you have paid into all your lives - to pay for Obamacare."
The $716 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years (2013-2022) between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. But the savings are mostly wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
While it is correct that anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans, it does not affect the Medicare trust fund. In fact, the Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
This has generally been a two-Pinocchio claim on the Fact Checker blog, although if Romney says Obama will raid the trust fund, that would likely push it to three Pinocchios.
"President Obama gutted welfare reform. My plan for a stronger middle class will put work back in welfare."
This highly inaccurate four-Pinocchio claim is at the center of what the Romney campaign considers its most effective ad. At issue is a memo issued in July by the Department of Health and Human Services, encouraging states to consider "new, more effective ways" of meeting employment goals. As part of that, the head of HHS would consider issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets.
The administration's move was a surprise, although it asserts that it reacted in response to requests from both Democratic and Republican governors. Even supporters suggest that the administration violated the spirit of the law, but no waivers have been issued, and Obama has taken no action to weaken work requirements. Romney is using an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules.
"Obama went around the world and apologized for America. . . . Do you want a president who will never, ever apologize for the greatest nation on earth?"
Romney frequently says that Obama apologized overseas for the United States. He even titled his campaign book "No Apology."
Even more, Romney suggests, Obama does not believe in American strength and greatness. The assertion feeds into a subterranean narrative that Obama, with his mixed-race background, is not really American in the first place.
But in a lengthy article on the Fact Checker blog, we tracked down every statement Obama uttered that partisans claim was an apology and concluded that each one had been misquoted or taken out of context. Despite earning four Pinocchios, Romney keeps saying this.
"President Obama has amassed five trillion dollars of debt - nearly as much debt held by the public as all other presidents combined."
The number is certainly correct, and the Romney campaign points to remarks made by Obama during the 2008 campaign about the growth of debt under President George W. Bush, using the same metric.
But the Fact Checker blog considers this a one-Pinocchio violation because it is simplistic to pin all of the debt increase on Obama's policies. The debt has gone up because of a mismatch between government spending and revenue - and the explosion of spending and the decline in revenue both began at the start of the recession, a full year before Obama took office.
kesslerg@washpost.com
The details of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention are not known, but he's been road-testing various claims about President Obama's record for months. Here are five dubious assertions that he frequently makes on the campaign trail or in his campaign advertisements that he might repeat Thursday night.
"If the president is reelected, he will succeed in raiding $716 billion from Medicare - from the trust fund you have paid into all your lives - to pay for Obamacare."
The $716 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years (2013-2022) between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. But the savings are mostly wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
While it is correct that anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans, it does not affect the Medicare trust fund. In fact, the Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
This has generally been a two-Pinocchio claim on the Fact Checker blog, although if Romney says Obama will raid the trust fund, that would likely push it to three Pinocchios.
"President Obama gutted welfare reform. My plan for a stronger middle class will put work back in welfare."
This highly inaccurate four-Pinocchio claim is at the center of what the Romney campaign considers its most effective ad. At issue is a memo issued in July by the Department of Health and Human Services, encouraging states to consider "new, more effective ways" of meeting employment goals. As part of that, the head of HHS would consider issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets.
The administration's move was a surprise, although it asserts that it reacted in response to requests from both Democratic and Republican governors. Even supporters suggest that the administration violated the spirit of the law, but no waivers have been issued, and Obama has taken no action to weaken work requirements. Romney is using an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules.
"President Obama has amassed five trillion dollars of debt - nearly as much debt held by the public as all other presidents combined."
The number is certainly correct, and the Romney campaign points to remarks made by Obama in the 2008 campaign about the growth of debt under President George W. Bush, using the same metric.
But the Fact Checker blog considers this a one-Pinocchio violation because it is simplistic to pin all of the debt increase on Obama's policies. The debt has gone up because of a mismatch between government spending and revenue - and the explosion of spending and the decline in revenue both began at the start of the recession, a full year before Obama took office.
kesslerg@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1121 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 30, 2012 Thursday 7:17 PM EST
Mitt Romney embraces Bain with Web site;
Mitt Romney launches expansive defense of business career.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 170 words
Mitt Romney, who rarely goes into detail about his business career on the campaign trail, has launched an expansive new Web site touting his record at Bain Capital: SterlingBusinessCareer.com.
"Governor Romney's work at Bain Capital was about fixing companies that were broken and giving new companies a chance at success," reads the homepage. The site features ad-like videos from people who worked with Romney at eight different companies, explaining how he helped them thrive.
The name draws on former president Bill Clinton's assessment of Romney's tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital. When President Obama was attacking Bain as a vampire that sucked companies dry , Clinton countered that Romney had a "sterling business career."
Romney's campaign has aggressively pushed back on Obama's attacks and on media reports on Bain. But the decision to proactively promote Romney's private sector experience is a shift, one that goes along with a running convention theme that financial success should not be demonized.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1122 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 30, 2012 Thursday 4:44 PM EST
Previewing the 'facts' in Mitt Romney's acceptance speech;
Here's a round-up of his favorite, most dubious claims
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 763 words
The details of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night are not known, but he's been road-testing various claims about President Obama's record for months. Here are five dubious assertions that he frequently makes on the campaign trail or in his campaign advertisements. (Republicans, no worries! We will also do this exercise for Obama next week.)
"If the President is reelected, he will succeed in raiding $716 billion from Medicare - from the trust fund you have paid into all your lives - to pay for Obamacare."
This $700 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years (2013-2022) between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. But the savings are mostly wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
While it is correct that anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans, it does not affect the Medicare trust fund. In fact, the Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
We have generally considered this to be a two-Pinocchio claim, though if Romney says Obama raided the trust fund, that would likely push it to three.
"President Obama gutted welfare reform. My plan for a stronger middle class will put work back in welfare."
This highly inaccurate Four Pinocchio claim is at the center of what the Romney campaign considers its most effective ad. At issue is a memo issued in July by the Department of Health and Human Services, encouraging states to consider "new, more effective ways" of meeting employment goals. As part of that, the HHS Secretary would consider issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets.
The administration's move was a surprise, though it claims it reacted in response to requests from both Democratic and Republican governors. Even supporters suggest that the administration violated the spirit of the law, but no waivers have been issued and Obama has taken no action to weaken work requirements. Romney is asserting an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules.
"Obama went around the world and apologized for America. ... Do you want a president who will never, ever apologize for the greatest nation on Earth?"
Romney frequently says that Obama apologized overseas for the United States. He even titled his campaign book "No Apology."
Even more, Romney suggests, Obama does not believe in American strength and greatness. The assertion feeds into a subterranean narrative that Obama, with his exotic, mixed-race background, is not really American in the first place.
But in a lengthy column last year, we tracked down every statement Obama uttered that partisans claim was an apology, and concluded that each one had been misquoted or taken out of context. Despite earning Four Pinocchios for months, Romney keeps saying this.
"President Obama has amassed five trillion dollars of debt - nearly as much debt held by the public as all other presidents combined."
The number is certainly correct, and the Romney campaign points to similar remarks made by Obama during the 2008 about the growth of debt under President George W. Bush, using the same metric.
But The Fact Checker considers this a One Pinocchio violation because it is simplistic to pin all of the debt increase on Obama's policies. The debt has gone up because of mismatch between government spending and revenues - and the explosion of spending and decline in revenues both began at the start of the recession, a full year before Obama took office.
"We will cut spending, shrink deficits and put America on track to a balanced budget."
This is more of a promise, rather than a fact, but Romney thus far has failed to show how he will achieve these goals. He has not identified enough spending cuts to balance the budget, and tax analysts have said that his plan to overhaul the tax code does not add up, without either cutting revenue even further or requiring new taxes.
Interestingly, Romney does not promise to achieve a balanced budget, merely to put the nation "on track" to a balanced budget - which could be decades away.
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1123 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 30, 2012 Thursday
Regional Edition
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A05
LENGTH: 1116 words
The details of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention are not known, but he's been road-testing various claims about President Obama's record for months. Here are five dubious assertions that he frequently makes on the campaign trail or in his campaign advertisements that he might repeat Thursday night.
"If the president is reelected, he will succeed in raiding $716 billion from Medicare - from the trust fund you have paid into all your lives - to pay for Obamacare."
The $716 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years (2013-2022) between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. But the savings are mostly wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
While it is correct that anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans, it does not affect the Medicare trust fund. In fact, the Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
This has generally been a two-Pinocchio claim on the Fact Checker blog, although if Romney says Obama will raid the trust fund, that would likely push it to three Pinocchios.
"President Obama gutted welfare reform. My plan for a stronger middle class will put work back in welfare."
This highly inaccurate four-Pinocchio claim is at the center of what the Romney campaign considers its most effective ad. At issue is a memo issued in July by the Department of Health and Human Services, encouraging states to consider "new, more effective ways" of meeting employment goals. As part of that, the head of HHS would consider issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets.
The administration's move was a surprise, although it asserts that it reacted in response to requests from both Democratic and Republican governors. Even supporters suggest that the administration violated the spirit of the law, but no waivers have been issued, and Obama has taken no action to weaken work requirements. Romney is using an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules.
"Obama went around the world and apologized for America. . . . Do you want a president who will never, ever apologize for the greatest nation on earth?"
Romney frequently says that Obama apologized overseas for the United States. He even titled his campaign book "No Apology."
Even more, Romney suggests, Obama does not believe in American strength and greatness. The assertion feeds into a subterranean narrative that Obama, with his mixed-race background, is not really American in the first place.
But in a lengthy article on the Fact Checker blog, we tracked down every statement Obama uttered that partisans claim was an apology and concluded that each one had been misquoted or taken out of context. Despite earning four Pinocchios, Romney keeps saying this.
"President Obama has amassed five trillion dollars of debt - nearly as much debt held by the public as all other presidents combined."
The number is certainly correct, and the Romney campaign points to remarks made by Obama during the 2008 campaign about the growth of debt under President George W. Bush, using the same metric.
But the Fact Checker blog considers this a one-Pinocchio violation because it is simplistic to pin all of the debt increase on Obama's policies. The debt has gone up because of a mismatch between government spending and revenue - and the explosion of spending and the decline in revenue both began at the start of the recession, a full year before Obama took office.
kesslerg@washpost.com
The details of Mitt Romney's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention are not known, but he's been road-testing various claims about President Obama's record for months. Here are five dubious assertions that he frequently makes on the campaign trail or in his campaign advertisements that he might repeat Thursday night.
"If the president is reelected, he will succeed in raiding $716 billion from Medicare - from the trust fund you have paid into all your lives - to pay for Obamacare."
The $716 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years (2013-2022) between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. But the savings are mostly wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
While it is correct that anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans, it does not affect the Medicare trust fund. In fact, the Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
This has generally been a two-Pinocchio claim on the Fact Checker blog, although if Romney says Obama will raid the trust fund, that would likely push it to three Pinocchios.
"President Obama gutted welfare reform. My plan for a stronger middle class will put work back in welfare."
This highly inaccurate four-Pinocchio claim is at the center of what the Romney campaign considers its most effective ad. At issue is a memo issued in July by the Department of Health and Human Services, encouraging states to consider "new, more effective ways" of meeting employment goals. As part of that, the head of HHS would consider issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets.
The administration's move was a surprise, although it asserts that it reacted in response to requests from both Democratic and Republican governors. Even supporters suggest that the administration violated the spirit of the law, but no waivers have been issued, and Obama has taken no action to weaken work requirements. Romney is using an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules.
"President Obama has amassed five trillion dollars of debt - nearly as much debt held by the public as all other presidents combined."
The number is certainly correct, and the Romney campaign points to remarks made by Obama in the 2008 campaign about the growth of debt under President George W. Bush, using the same metric.
But the Fact Checker blog considers this a one-Pinocchio violation because it is simplistic to pin all of the debt increase on Obama's policies. The debt has gone up because of a mismatch between government spending and revenue - and the explosion of spending and the decline in revenue both began at the start of the recession, a full year before Obama took office.
kesslerg@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1124 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 29, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Shift in Connecticut Senate Race as Democrat Is Put on Defensive
BYLINE: By PETER APPLEBOME; Patrick Skahill contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Metropolitan Desk; Pg. 20
LENGTH: 1453 words
NEW HAVEN -- Representative Christopher S. Murphy has been at once the other guy -- the largely unknown subject of attack ads by his Republican rival, Linda E. McMahon -- and the Democratic nominee who was presumed to be the heavy favorite in the Senate race to replace Joseph I. Lieberman.
But a funny thing has happened in Connecticut as the political world has focused on Missouri, Massachusetts, Virginia and the few other states considered likely to determine which party controls the Senate. Battered by Ms. McMahon's advertisements before he even became the nominee, Mr. Murphy has found himself on the defensive in a race that could add an unexpected wild card into the battle for the Senate.
Mr. Murphy, who defeated a 24-year incumbent, Representative Nancy Johnson, in 2006 to represent Connecticut's Fifth Congressional District, says he is not surprised that polls now show a tight race in a state where Republicans have not elected a senator since Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in 1982. Several months ago, polls showed Mr. Murphy well ahead of Ms. McMahon in a hypothetical matchup.
''We've always known this race was going to be close,'' Mr. Murphy said before a luncheon with voters here, adding that Ms. McMahon has spent approximately five times as much on television ads as he has. ''And Connecticut has a history of pretty competitive statewide races, so I'm confident I'm going to win, but I don't think it's going to be a blowout.''
A Quinnipiac University poll of 1,472 likely voters that was released on Tuesday showed that Ms. McMahon was favored by 49 percent and Mr. Murphy by 46 percent, essentially tied, given that the poll's margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points. She led 54 percent to 42 percent among men. Among women, Mr. Murphy got 50 percent to Ms. McMahon's 46 percent.
Most positive for Ms. McMahon is the increase in her favorability ratings. Though she was once viewed unfavorably by almost 50 percent of the voters, the newer poll showed her being seen favorably by 47 percent and unfavorably by 35 percent, reflecting, in large part, ads focusing on her family, humble beginnings and success overcoming early business struggles. The results reflect the degree to which she has dominated the airwaves and political conversation after spending more than $65 million, almost all of it her own money, beginning with her 2010 race.
In addition to the ads reintroducing herself, she has hit Mr. Murphy repeatedly with ads saying that during the financial crisis, in his first term, he missed 80 percent of subcommittee meetings on financial issues. He responded in his own ad and in statements that he voted on 97 percent of committee business and that many of the meetings he missed were when Congress was not in session and he was back in the district.
But the exchange left him responding to her charges, so the results of the Quinnipiac poll came as no surprise to political observers in the state and to Connecticut Democrats who have been quietly fretting that Ms. McMahon's shrewd use of her millions was creating a juggernaut fully capable of winning the race. Republicans have to gain four seats to take control of the Senate, or three if Mitt Romney wins, which would make Paul Ryan, as vice president, the tiebreaker vote. Mr. Lieberman, who is retiring, is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.
''What's clearly happening is that McMahon is winning the game of define-your-opponent,'' said Gary L. Rose, a professor of politics and government at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn. ''She's controlling the tempo of this campaign, not him.''
There are many reasons for Democrats to remain optimistic.
Ms. McMahon spent $50 million to try to win the seat in 2010, only to lose to a former Connecticut attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, by 12 points in a year that saw Republicans make large gains nationwide. This time, President Obama, who won the state by 22 points in 2008, is at the top of the ticket.
And Mr. Murphy, 39, is an attractive rising star in the party, who has won handily since defeating Ms. Johnson in the most Republican-leaning district in the state. A lawyer who practiced real estate and banking law, he served eight years in the Connecticut General Assembly, four in the House and four in the Senate before going to Washington. If he wins, he would rank at or near the bottom of the Senate in terms of personal wealth. She would be at or near the top.
Mr. Murphy, whose campaign has spent about $3 million so far, has focused on manufacturing, health issues and crafting an image as a progressive Democrat with bipartisan appeal who has been willing to work with Republicans in the House. He says he is proud to put his work in government up against Ms. McMahon's history as the former chief executive of the World Wrestling Entertainment.
''Linda McMahon has spent her career running over people to get ahead,'' he said, adding that what she has billed as a middle-class tax cut would reduce her own tax bill by $7 million. ''She's made it very clear who her priority will be if she is elected to the Senate, and it will be her.''
But many observers are skeptical that the 2010 race presents a road map for the race now.
The doubts begin with Mr. Murphy's ability to withstand an advertising assault the way Mr. Blumenthal could.
''Dick Blumenthal had 30 years of building a brand that's impeccable in the State of Connecticut,'' said John W. Olson, president of the Connecticut A.F.L.-C.I.O. and a supporter of Mr. Murphy's. ''Murphy works hard, he's a fighter, he's articulate, but he's pretty much an unknown throughout the state.''
The Democrats' control of the state is viewed as somewhat illusory -- about 40 percent of registered voters are independents, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's approval ratings are lagging, and the Democratic Legislature presided over an unpopular tax increase last year. Mr. Obama seems unlikely to approach his victory margin from 2008. The Quinnipiac poll showed him leading Mr. Romney by seven percentage points in the state.
And observers from both parties say that Ms. McMahon, who defeated a former representative, Christopher Shays, in the Republican primary, is skillfully creating a narrative straight out of the good-guy-bad-guy world of wrestling, in which she is the plucky, entrepreneurial outsider and he is the out-of-touch Washington insider.
''Linda McMahon has run a nearly flawless campaign to date,'' said Jerry Labriola, the Connecticut Republican Party chairman. ''She's succeeded in defining Murphy for what he is, a liberal career politician who's accomplished nothing.''
Democrats say that she has had the advantage of having the airwaves mostly to herself. A less one-sided news media campaign, a renewed attention to the seamy aspects of her wrestling past and the Democratic gravitational pull will produce a victory for Mr. Murphy, they say. But interviews in Danbury, in Mr. Murphy's own district, indicated that Ms. McMahon remained the focus of voter attention, not him. Some of that attention was negative.
Joan Harel, an artist who lives there, said she voted for Ms. McMahon in 2010, but would not support her this time. ''I feel like she is trying to buy the election, which she can do,'' she said.
But Melissa Baumgardner, who lives in New Milford, is just the kind of voter that the McMahon campaign needs in a state that Mr. Obama will likely carry: someone who will vote for Mr. Obama and for Ms. McMahon.
Ms. Baumgardner said the image of Ms. McMahon as a hard-working woman resonated with her. ''This is a woman who's been through having to file bankruptcy, who's been poor,'' Ms. Baumgardner said. ''She knows what it's like to be at rock bottom.''
Jennifer E. Duffy, a political analyst with the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan political newsletter, said that the race had been off the national political radar screen but that she expected that to change. She said she planned to re-evaluate her rating of the race as ''likely Democrat'' after the Republican convention.
''This is a race that the Democrats didn't think they would have to spend money on,'' she said. ''They know they do now.''
PHOTOS: Though Representative Christopher S. Murphy, center, wearing a tie, is not well known in his state, he was long considered the favorite to replace Joseph I. Lieberman in the United States Senate. (PHOTOGRAPH BY CHRISTOPHER CAPOZZIELLO FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A20); Representative Christopher S. Murphy, a Democrat, has been battered by ads from Linda E. McMahon, the Republican candidate.; Ms. McMahon, a former wrestling magnate, has spent millions of dollars to dominate the airwaves in Connecticut. (PHOTOGRAPH BY JESSICA HILL/ASSOCIATED PRESS) (A23)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/nyregion/in-connecticut-attack-ads-chip-away-christopher-murphys-lead-in-senate-race.html
LOAD-DATE: August 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1125 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 29, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
The Secret Weapon: All of Us
BYLINE: By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF.
Maureen Dowd's column will appear on Thursday.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 27
LENGTH: 801 words
The Republican National Convention opened by smacking President Obama with the theme ''We Built it.''
To pound that message, Republicans turned to a Delaware businesswoman, Sher Valenzuela, who is also a candidate for lieutenant governor. Valenzuela and her husband built an upholstery business that now employs dozens of workers.
Valenzuela presumably was picked to speak so that she could thunder at Obama for disdaining capitalism.
Oops. It turns out that Valenzuela relied not only on her entrepreneurial skills but also on -- yes, government help. Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, documented $2 million in loans from the Small Business Administration for Valenzuela's company, plus $15 million in government contracts (mostly noncompetitive ones).
In a presentation earlier this year, Valenzuela described government assistance as an entrepreneur's ''biggest 'secret weapon.' ''
Someone has set up a parody Web site, using the name of Valenzuela's company, First State Manufacturing, to mock the Republican message. The site, FirstStateManufacturing.com, declares, ''Thank God government was there for me.''
In short, the Republicans are inadvertently underscoring the point that President Obama was expressing in his ''you didn't build that'' comment in July. Obama noted then that ''if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.'' He pointed to public investments in roads and bridges that enable businesses to flourish, and then he inelegantly added, ''If you've got a business, you didn't build that.''
Fox News erupted in outrage, selectively editing the clip to confirm Republican prejudices that Obama doesn't understand the private sector. This fits into the Republican narrative that business executives are heroic job creators when they aren't held back by regulations and taxes imposed by quasi-socialist Muslims born in Kenya.
Democrats tried to highlight a flaw in that narrative when they released a new ad pointing to Mitt Romney's outsourcing of jobs and telling him, ''You didn't build that -- you destroyed it.''
Yet to me, that Democratic line of attack on Romney as a serial job destroyer feels unfair. Sometimes the way to save a company is to cut labor costs or outsource jobs, and almost nobody wants to ban trade or overseas production even though they can cost jobs.
What is fair is to observe that the Republicans' claim that they are the great job creators is a fiction.
Prof. Robert S. McElvaine of Millsaps College examined employment data for the 64 years from the beginning of Harry Truman's presidency to the end of George W. Bush's. He found that an average of two million jobs were created per year when a Democrat was president, compared with one million annually when a Republican was president.
More pointedly, and unfortunately for Romney, business executives have only a mediocre record when transferring their skills to government. In the last great economic mess, this country was led by a Republican who had been stunningly successful in business: Herbert Hoover. Hmm. More recently, President George W. Bush staffed his cabinet with C.E.O.'s who had been stellar in the private sector -- and that didn't work out so well, either.
Obama's point about our shared undertaking was made last year, more eloquently, by Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat running for Senate:
''There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own -- nobody!'' she said. ''You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you all were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. ...
''You built a factory, and it turned into something terrific or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.''
In short, taxes don't just smother. They can also fuel growth -- when they're invested in highways or the Internet, in colleges or early childhood education. They can create opportunities, as they did for Sher Valenzuela.
Or for Romney himself. He built his Bain empire partly because he was smart and hard-working, but also because of a great education and because of tax breaks for debt financing. Tax loopholes helped him build his fortune, and other loopholes gave him the low tax rates to retain it.
If the Republican convention wishes to highlight and explain Romney's success, it should have a moment of silence to honor our infernal tax code.
Who built this country? Entrepreneurs, yes. But so did schoolteachers and railway construction workers. Doctors and truckers. Scientists and soldiers. You didn't build it, Mitt Romney -- we all built it.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/opinion/kristof-the-secret-weapon-all-of-us.html
LOAD-DATE: August 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1126 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Learning Network)
August 29, 2012 Wednesday
Election Unit, Part 2: What Are the Issues?
BYLINE: MICHAEL GONCHAR
SECTION: EDUCATION
LENGTH: 1525 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mini-Unit 2 of our Election Unit is about researching the issues. The unit includes lesson activities, projects and useful handouts.
All week long we are publishing sections of our Election Unit, each day's post a new "mini-unit" based on an essential question. All five posts work together to take students through a series of hands-on research and presentation projects that will help them understand the candidates and the issues in this year's presidential race.
For this unit we're asking, How Would the Presidential Campaigns Change if the Voting Age Were 13? and inviting students to write in and tell us. Doing so will enter them in a contest to have their thoughts published on the Learning Network and, perhaps, elsewhere on NYTimes.com.
On Monday we gave an overview of the entire unit, including goals, essential questions and projects. Tuesday we explained how the unit begins with students becoming candidate research teams to prepare candidate profiles directed at youth voters. Below, the campaign issues.
Mini-Unit 2: The Issues
Essential Question 2: What Are the Issues?
Projects: Issues-Based Campaign Materials and Debate
Overview: For this second mini-unit, students continue working on the campaign teams, but instead of researching the candidates' biographies, they are now learning about the issues at stake in this election. By the end, they will both learn about the candidates' stances on the most important issues, and become experts on one particular issue. Their task is to create campaign materials aimed at youth voters for the coming mock election and to hold a debate on the key issues. (For a full list of the Common Core State Standards this unit will address, please see our introductory post.)
Survey or Interview: To begin Mini-Unit 2, students take a survey of what issues matter most to them. The survey can be a simple open-ended question -- "What three issues in this election matter most to you?" -- or it can include a list of preselected issues that students rank. Students can interview a partner or take the survey individually. Below are some possible issues:
Jobs and the Economy
Education
Energy and the Environment
Immigration
Tax Policy
Health Care
Foreign Policy and Defense
Social Issues
Issue Research: For this research project, students should still be working as part of their "campaign teams" that lead to the culminating mock election. While they should stay on either Mitt Romney's or President Obama's team for the unit to build momentum, you might want to change the composition of the small research groups. Students can work in pairs or small groups, or they can work individually, depending on what format suits your class best.
To prepare for the coming mock election campaigns, students are conducting research on the most important issues in this election and the candidates' positions on those issues. The survey results from the opening activity can help determine what issues students are researching.
We imagine that the research process begins with students getting a broad overview of the candidates and their positions. Then, once the class has a good understanding of where the candidates stand on key issues, students can shift their research so they become "experts" on one particular topic and what is at stake.
We prepared two graphic organizers to help guide student research. (Click on the images to download a PDF version.) Again, you may find it more useful to create a Google document or Wiki, so students can more easily collaborate on their research.
After students work on the broad picture, they can become experts on a single issue by using the second organizer. This chart (another PDF) asks students to write more information about their candidate's position, keep track of relevant quotes stated by their candidate, and reflect on how this issue affects youth.
Resources for Issue Research: We've gathered resources that can be useful for students doing research on where the candidates stand on different election issues. We will continually update this post as new resources become available.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan organization ProCon.org offers a side by side comparison of where all the 2012 presidential candidates stand on dozens of issues. When students click on an issue, they will see relevant quotes made by the various candidates.
CNN's Election Center also gives background on key issues along with a brief summary of the candidates' positions.
The Obama and Romney Web sites provide the official candidate positions on many issues.
The New York Times Upfront Magazine's article "What's at Stake" is a resource that might be particularly useful for students who need a broad overview of the issues before beginning more targeted research.
For a more in-depth conversation about important election-related issues, like the economy and climate change, The Agenda on NYTimes.com provides analysis of problems, their impact and potential solutions.
If students want to do additional research in The Times on how the issues are playing out in the campaign, they can use the advanced search feature. Or they can go directly to the index pages for the most up-to-date politics articles and videos.
Project 1 | Issues-Based Campaign Materials: Working in teams, students create campaign materials for the coming mock election targeting youth. Depending on your classroom resources, the time you want to devote to this project, as well as the skills you want students to practice, you can have your students create brochures, posters, television or radio commercials, or campaign buttons. If students became "experts" in one issue during their research, they can create issue brochures or tri-fold displays. Alternatively, the campaign "team" could collaborate on making a campaign Web site. Depending on your own instructional goals, this project could emphasize policy detail, creativity or both.
Presentation: All of these campaign materials are perfect to use in a mock election, and a real audience for student work is a powerful motivator. If you are not planning to hold a mock election, then these materials could be presented in different formats. For example, students could walk around the classroom looking at one another's work displayed in a "gallery" on walls and desks. Students could also present their work in front of the class.
Either way, encourage students to look closely at the projects and think about which candidate best matches with their own positions. They can use this information during the final mini-unit when they write their own endorsement of a particular candidate.
In addition, creating an opportunity for students to give and receive peer feedback can help them improve their projects for the mock election as well as be more engaged in the presentations. You might want to use a handout similar to the one below to facilitate the peer feedback process. (Click on the image to download a PDF version.)
Project 2 | Structured Debate: In addition to having students create campaign materials, or as an alternative to that project, students could hold a debate on the issues. They could maintain their roles as members of the campaign team and debate from a candidate's point of view. Or they could step away from the campaign and debate the issues and the candidates' stances using their own opinions.
Debates can take place in many formats, and we write about several in our post, "Great Debate: Developing Argumentation Skills." If students become "experts" on a single issue during their research, then a Structured Academic Controversy would give all students the opportunity to participate in a mini-debate about health care policy or immigration reform, or whatever issue they researched. Our lesson "On 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': Debating a Proposed Repeal" provides detailed instructions for how to organize this kind of debate.
Another debate format that can keep the whole class engaged is a Roundtable Discussion, similar to the format in the TV program "Meet the Press." In this type of debate, a small group of students sits in the center or front of the classroom as a panel of experts while the rest of the class listens and takes notes. Students in the "audience" could be waiting for their turn to participate in the discussion, or they could be formulating questions to ask the roundtable members. You could also allow audience members to get up and tap on the shoulder of a panel member after the panelist made two comments, thus allowing a continuous rotation between panel and audience members.
You may want to encourage students to give one another feedback on their debate performance using the Evaluate a Debate (PDF) handout or a similar feedback form.
Related Learning Network Lesson Plans
2007 | Future Voters of America: Forming Your Own Opinions on Controversial Issues
2007 | Where Do They Stand? Researching the Positions of Candidates
On Thursday we will post our Election Unit's third mini-unit, which focuses on campaign strategies and how the candidates will try to win the election.
Election Unit, Part 3: The Campaign Strategy
Election Unit, Part 1: Who Are the Candidates?
Our Election 2012 Unit: An Overview
How Would the Presidential Campaigns Change if the Voting Age Were 13?
Romney Chooses His Running Mate
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1127 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(IHT Rendezvous)
August 29, 2012 Wednesday
China Slams Romney for 'Pugnacious' Policies
BYLINE: MARK MCDONALD
SECTION: WORLD
LENGTH: 1049 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mitt Romney and the Republican Party favor a tougher line on Chinese trade practices and human rights, they want a more robust U.S. naval presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and they'd sell high-tech arms to Taiwan. China says the "pugnacious" proposals smack of "a Cold War mentality."
HONG KONG - The Republican Party was still battening down its hatches against Tropical Storm Isaac when Hurricane China began to lash Mitt Romney and the party's proposed policies on Asia.
The principal attack came through an editorial on Monday in China Daily, the state-run newspaper, which called Mr. Romney's policies "an outdated manifestation of a Cold War mentality" that "endorses the 'China threat' theory and focuses on containing China's rise."
The editorial said the Romney policies, as stated on his campaign Web site, were "worrying" and "more pugnacious" than the approach of the Obama administration.
The 2012 Republican Party platform says the United States should bolster its naval presence in the region while "assisting partners that require help to enhance their defensive capabilities."
"In the face of China's accelerated military build-up, the United States and our allies must maintain appropriate military capabilities to discourage any aggressive or coercive behavior by China against its neighbors," the platform said.
But the China Daily editorial warned Mr. Romney that U.S. support of other Asian countries in their disputes with China over islands in the South China Sea "will only lead to head-on confrontation between the two countries."
"The Department of Defense should reconsider recent decisions not to sell top-of-the-line equipment to our closest Asian allies," the G.O.P. platform states. "We should be coordinating with Taiwan to determine its military needs and supplying them with adequate aircraft and other military platforms."
Any mention of Taiwan was bound to get China's attention, and China Daily said:
As to Romney's suggestion that the US step up arms sales to Taiwan, it lays bare his ignorance of the fundamentals of Sino-US ties, as this is the most sensitive issue between the two countries. US arms sales to Taiwan have thrown bilateral ties off balance several times in the past. It requires political vision as well as profound knowledge of Sino-US relations as a whole, to make sensible policy recommendations about what are widely recognized as the most important bilateral ties in the world. Romney apparently lacks both.
Mr. Romney said pressing China on human rights would be a centerpiece of his administration's policy. From his campaign site:
If the United States fails to support dissidents out of fear of offending the Chinese government, we will merely embolden China's leaders. We certainly should not have relegated the future of freedom to second or third place, as Secretary of State Clinton did in 2009 when she publicly declared that the Obama administration would not let U.S. concerns about China's human rights record interfere with cooperation "on the global economic crisis [and] the global climate change crisis."
Free and fair trade is another key part of the G.O.P. platform, and Mr. Romney and the party said they would allow China into a proposed free-trading "Reagan Economic Zone" that "could knit together the whole region."
But the party also singles out China as the principal foreign thief of American patents, brands, technology and intellectual property. From its platform:
The chief offender is China, which has built up its economy in part by piggybacking onto Western technological advances, manipulates its currency to the disadvantage of American exporters, excludes American products from government purchases, subsidizes Chinese companies to give them a commercial advantage, and invents regulations and standards designed to keep out foreign competition. The current Administration's way of dealing with all these violations of world trade standards has been a virtual surrender.
The platform also threatens to invoke "countervailing duties if China fails to amend its currency policies," and "punitive measures will be imposed on foreign firms that misappropriate American technology and intellectual property." If China fails to abide by W.T.O. protocols, the platform says, "the United States government will end procurement of Chinese goods and services."
Another China Daily commentary said this kind of tough talk is being employed "to differentiate his China policies from Obama's and curry favor with hard right-wing elements in the Republican Party." The commentary acknowledged Mr. Romney's promise to brand China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, but said China is "inured to such campaign talk from American politicians."
Evan A. Feigenbaum, an Asia-Pacific co-chair on the Romney foreign policy advisory team, said in a November interview with the Council on Foreign Relations that countries in Asia are now so deeply integrated with China that their growth is virtually dependent on Beijing.
"But China scares them silly," Mr. Feigenbaum said, "so those [same] countries are tacking toward the United States for closer security partnerships."
He downplayed the so-called "pivot" of U.S. military assets toward the Asia-Pacific region. American diplomats have more recently spurned "pivot" for the term "rebalancing." An excerpt from Mr. Feigenbaum's C.F.R. interview with Bernard Gwertzman:
There's no question that the United States is paying a lot of attention to what's happening in Asia, but this notion of some gigantic pivot obscures the degree to which there are some really central pillars of American policy in the Pacific that have roots that go back decades.
It isn't as if the United States suddenly woke up in the last year or two and discovered that it ought to play an important role in security in Asia. The notion of some gigantic pivot isn't helpful because it suggests that the United States is kind of a herky-jerky super power that swings wildly from focusing on one thing to focusing on another thing.
Firstly, that doesn't really describe reality, and second, it's not very reassuring to Asian countries and particularly to U.S. allies to see the United States described that way.
What's your take on the Romney/Republican approach toward Asia in general and toward China more specifically? Do you favor a harder line with Beijing on human rights - and more challenges on its trade practices? Better weapons for Taiwan? Do you agree with China Daily that Mr. Romney's proposed policies are too "pugnacious" and smack of a return to "a Cold War mentality"?
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1128 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Media Decoder)
August 29, 2012 Wednesday
Yahoo Fires Bureau Chief After a Live Mic Picked Up His Comments
BYLINE: BRIAN STELTER
SECTION: BUSINESS; media
LENGTH: 347 words
HIGHLIGHT: David Chalian was recorded saying that Republican convention officials were "happy to have a party with black people drowning."
Yahoo on Wednesday said it had fired David Chalian, the Web site's Washington bureau chief, after he was recorded at the Republican National Convention saying that the convention officials were "happy to have a party with black people drowning."
Yahoo said the reference Mr. Chalian made to the flooding caused by Hurricane Issac was "inappropriate and does not represent the views" of the company. "He has been terminated," the company said in a statement.
Mr. Chalian did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
His "drowning" comment was made on Monday night during Yahoo's live Web video coverage of the convention. The coverage is being produced in partnership with ABC News, where Mr. Chalian worked as political director until 2010. After a little more than a year at PBS's "NewsHour," he joined Yahoo in late 2011.
The comment was picked up by NewsBusters, a conservative media watchdog Web site, which posted a short video clip of it on Wednesday morning. Mr. Chalian, who is heard but not seen in the clip, was apparently unaware that his words were being Webcast at the time.
He said to an unidentified guest, "Feel free to say, 'They're not concerned at all. They are happy to have a party with black people drowning.' " Laughter could then be heard in the background.
The context of Mr. Chalian's remarks -- was he merely goading a guest to say something provocative, or was he expressing his own point of view? -- was unclear in the audio clip. NewsBusters said it was a "perfect example of the pervasive anti-Republican bias Mitt Romney faces in his bid to unseat President Barack Obama."
In its statement, Yahoo said, "We have already reached out to the Romney campaign, and we apologize to Mitt Romney, his staff, their supporters and anyone who was offended."
Debates Denied, Univision Turns to Candidate Forums
Donations by Media Companies Tilt Heavily to Obama
Republican Officials Remove 2 Attendees For 'Deplorable Behavior' Toward CNN Staffer
With Isaac Bearing Down, Networks Weigh Their Options
Mog, an Online Music Service, Sells Its Ad Network for $10 Million
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1129 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 29, 2012 Wednesday
Ryan Medicare Plan Is Already Shaking Up House Races
BYLINE: JONATHAN WEISMAN
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 866 words
HIGHLIGHT: Paul D. Ryan's presence on the Republican ticket is having an impact on Congressional races.
TAMPA, Fla. - Paul D. Ryan will take the stage at the Republican National Convention here on Wednesday to accept his party's nomination for vice president, but around the country, his plan for a sweeping remake of Medicare is shaking up Congressional campaigns, in some cases allowing Democrats to make inroads in races in which they were once seen as dead in the water.
Republican and Democratic pollsters and strategists say a curious split is developing around the Ryan plan. The top of the Republican ticket - Mitt Romney and Mr. Ryan - is holding its own with the issue in a presidential contest that has shown little movement in polls for months. But down the ticket, Medicare attacks are taking a serious toll on Republicans.
"It's a down-ballot disaster, across the board," boasted Representative Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "We left for recess in a fairly neutral environment, where nearly a month later we have a good stiff wind at our backs. That wind is mostly propelled by Paul Ryan and his budget."
Officials at the National Republican Congressional Committee said the attacks were not working. Guy Harrison, the committee's executive director, predicted that within two weeks, frustrated Democrats will move on to other issues.
But other Republicans - privately and publicly - say Democrats are not about to let up. Tom Cotton, a rising Republican star running for the Arkansas seat of Representative Mike Ross, a Democrat who is retiring, said that the attacks were not working on him in a district that is trending strongly Republican, but that other candidates were struggling.
Still, he said, most candidates are ready to fight for Mr. Ryan's plan.
"They recognize, as the House members already there recognize, we have to have this debate, and we have to win this debate," he said, recalling ambush training he had in the Army when soldiers were drilled to face an attack head-on. "This is the most predictable ambush in politics. You don't duck and cover. You turn and face it."
In Mr. Ryan's Wednesday night speech, Republicans are not expecting him to delve into the details of his "Path to Prosperity," the budget plan he wrote and the House passed earlier this year. Under the Ryan proposal, those who are now under 55 would no longer receive a government-guaranteed, fee-for-service health plan when they reach 65. Instead, at 67, they would receive a fixed amount each year that they would use to purchase private health insurance or buy into the existing Medicare program. That check would increase each year slightly faster than the growth of the economy, regardless of the rate of health care cost inflation.
Democrats are pointing to a raft of polling - most of it from Democratic pollsters - showing their candidates building significant leads in districts Republicans think they should win. A late July poll showed Representative Jim Matheson of Utah 18 percentage points ahead of the Republican candidate, Mia Love, who is getting star treatment in Tampa. In a poll by the Democratic firm Lake Research Partners, Ricky Gill, another Republican candidate granted a speaking slot at the convention on Tuesday, was 16 points behind Representative Jerry McNerney, a California Democrat in a redrawn Republican-leaning district.
Representative Mike McIntyre, Democrat of North Carolina, was all but left for dead after his district was redrawn to skew heavily Republican. But in late July, he was up on the Republican candidate, David Rouzer, 53 percent to 34 percent.
Since then, Democrats have poured on the Medicare attack, especially since Mr. Ryan was named to the ticket. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's first independent expenditures advertisement on the freshman representative Dan Benishek of Michigan, saying he had voted to "essentially end Medicare and raise costs on seniors by over $6,000 a year."
The same line of attack ison the air in North Carolina against Mr. Rouzer, coupled with the charge that his Ryan budget vote would also cut taxes for millionaires, "definitely not North Carolina values."
President Obama's campaign came to Tampa on Wednesday to keep the heat on, introducing Carole Nenninger, a 71-year-old from just outside Tampa, to tell her story of her husband, Bill, whose battle with cancer has cost endless heartaches and more than $1 million - all paid by Medicare.
"If there's a voucher, I'm a little skeptical about turning over medical insurance to a private insurance company," said the Obama campaign volunteer.
Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the National Republican Congressional Committee's recruitment chairman, expressed no concern about the attacks and confidence that Republicans will actually pick up seats in November. Mr. Harrison added that the Medicare attacks were no more potent with Mr. Ryan on the ticket than they were when the first wave of them hit in a 2010 special election in upstate New York, when the Democratic candidate, Kathy Hochul, won a Republican seat.
"There is not going to be an additional House ad because of Paul Ryan," said Mr. Harrison, the N.R.C.C.'s executive director. "There were going to run on him anyway."
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1130 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 29, 2012 Wednesday 10:52 PM EST
Romney hits Obama over defense cuts in Indiana;
GOP presidential nominee spent afternoon away from Tampa, delivering address in Indianapolis.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 599 words
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Fix Hangout: N.J. Senate candidate Joe Kyrillos and gearing up for Paul Ryan
5 speakers to watch on Wednesday at the Republican National Convention
Who you wont see on stage at the Republican National Convention
Why 2012 isnt 2008 in 1 chart
Conservatives like Mitt Romney. Finally.
Obamas ground game advantage
Why the GOP is winning the battle over Paul Ryan
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* Mitt Romney spent the afternoon in Indianapolis where he slammed President Obama overdefensecuts in a speech at the American Legion national convention.A year ago, President Obama told your national convention that, We cannot, we must not, we will not balance the budget on the backs of our veterans, Romney told the veterans organization. I thought Id finally agreed with him on something. But now hes on the verge of breaking that promise."
* Connecticut Republican Senate nominee Linda McMahon has released a new contrast ad thatcriticizesRep. Chris Murphy (D) for skipping committee meetings in Congress andraisingtaxes. A Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday showed the McMahon-Murphy matchup to be within the margin of error.
* Former Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine is up with a new positive TV ad in his Virginia Senate campaign that stresses the importance of job creation and infrastructure.Education and training are the keys to the jobs of tomorrow. We need to remain the most talented nation on earth, and I have a plan to keep us there," Kaine says in the spot.
* Yahoo News Washington Bureau chief David Chalianhas been firedafter being caught saying that Romney and Republicansare happy to have a party with black people drowning" - an apparentimplication thatRepublicans' decision to continue their convention while now-Tropical Storm Issac hits New Orleans means they do not care about African-Americans. Chalian has apologized, saying, "I am profoundly sorry for making an inappropriate and thoughtless joke.I was commenting on the challenge of staging a convention during a hurricane and about campaign optics. I have apologized to the Romney campaign, and I want to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Gov. and Mrs. Romney."
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* At a campaign rally in Charlottesville, Virginia,protestersdrowned out Obama, but his supporters in turndrownedoutthem. While it was notclear what the protesters were saying, several members of the crowd said they heard Get out of Afghanistan!
* The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched its third independent expenditure TV ad of the cycle. The spot targets freshmanRep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) and says he voted "againstmaking sure our soldiers got paid" andagainstincreasing combat pay. Duffy's Democratic opponent is former state legislator Pat Kreitlow.
* The daughter and two grandchildren of the late Arizona Republican senator Barry Goldwater have endorsed Democrat Richard Carmona in the Arizona Senate race."Congressman Flake has tried to claim the 'conservative' mantel, but my dad's brand of conservatism is not reflected by Flake or the modern-day Republican Party," said Joanne Goldwater.
* A Democratic poll conducted byGarin-Hart-Yang Research Group for House Majority PAC/SEIU/AFSCME/Friends Of Democracy shows Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) and Democratic physician Ami Bera tied at 47 percent.
THE FIX MIX:
Quite the group.
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1131 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 29, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Ghosts of the South
BYLINE: Harold Meyerson
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A21
LENGTH: 819 words
The Republican ticket may hail from Massachusetts and Wisconsin, but Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan head the most Southernized major U.S. political party since Jefferson Davis's day. In its hostility toward minorities, exploitation of racism, antipathy toward government and suspicion of science, today's Republican Party represents the worst traditions of the South's dankest backwaters. No other party in U.S. history has done such a 180. Founded as the party of the anti-slavery North and committed to deep governmental involvement in spurring the economy (land-grant colleges, the Homestead Act, the transcontinental railway), today's GOP is the negation of Abraham Lincoln's Republicans. It is almost entirely white - 92 percent, compared with just 58 percent of Democrats. It is disproportionately Southern - 49 percent of Republicans live in the South vs. 39 percent of Democrats.
The beliefs of the white South dominate Republican thinking. As the white share of the U.S. population shrinks and the Latino share rises, Republicans have passed draconian anti-immigrant laws and opposed legislation enabling immigrants brought here as children to gain legal status. They also exploit racist resentments in a way not seen since the Willie Horton spot of 1988. Consider the Romney campaign's ads falsely attacking President Obama for gutting welfare reform. "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job," proclaims one such commercial. "They just send you a welfare check." Obama's plan, as several media fact-checking monitors have noted, does nothing of the sort. The spot clearly seeks to resurrect the kind of resentment of African Americans that the GOP exploited back in the days when welfare was a major program. The Romney campaign has evidently concluded, since virtually its entire pool of potential voters is white, that it must rouse the sometime voters among them with such expedients - which explains why it is running more of these ads than any others. In the anti-government column, the Ryan budget, which House Republicans enthusiastically adopted, would cut taxes disproportionately on the wealthy and halve the share of spending on every domestic, non-entitlement program. It would decimate education, transportation and funding for college students and scientific research. It would bring the nation down to the developmental level of the anti-tax, anti-public-investment Southern states of yore.
The ghosts of Dixie - of the Scopes Trial and the underfunding of public education - also pop up in Republicans' willful resistance to science and, more broadly, simple empiricism. Global warming? Evolution? Homosexuality's causation? How babies get made? Find a robust scientific conclusion and you can find a significant number of Republicans - adducing pseudo-science and faith - who oppose it. What's remarkable is not that a significant number of Republicans harbor these beliefs but that these beliefs have come to dominate the party. Veteran politicians of the more pluralistic GOP that was around as recently as half a decade ago, including Orrin Hatch and Romney himself, have had to repudiate their past as thoroughly as China's communist apparatchiks did during the Cultural Revolution. An empiricist? Not me, buddy.
But how is it that the South has come North in today's GOP? The fact that Barack Obama is our first black president coincides with the United States' transformation from a majority-white nation to a multiracial country no longer destined to remain the world's hegemon. Augmented by an intractable recession rooted in a crisis of capitalism, this epochal shift has summoned the shades of racial resentment. To the extent that Republicans can depict government as the servant of this rising non-white America (precisely the purpose of Romney's ads), the South's antipathy toward government can find a receptive audience in other regions.
This transformation of the GOP has also been spurred by the Southernization of the economy. The U.S. economy's dominant sector is no longer the unionized manufacturing of the Northeast and Midwest, whose leaders included such Republican moderates as George Romney, and whose white working-class employees were persuaded by their unions to back Democratic candidates. Instead, the economy is dominated by a mix of the low-wage, nonunion retail and service sectors, and by high finance, which has shown itself fiercely opposed to regulation and taxation, happy to reap and shield its profits abroad at the expense of U.S. workers, and willing to invest plenty in a party that does its bidding.
That party is meeting in Tampa this week. Cut through its self-justifying rhetoric and we're left with a GOP whose existential credo is, "We're old, we're white and we want our country back." The rest, as the sages say, is commentary.
meyersonh@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1132 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 29, 2012 Wednesday 2:33 PM EST
Is Clint Eastwood the GOP convention mystery speaker?;
Eastwood headed to Tampa
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 53 words
Townhall reports the movie star-director is on his way to Tampa.
Eastwood endorsedMitt Romney earlier this month. His attention-grabbingSuper Bowl ad earlier this year stoked buzz that he was signaling support for the auto bailout. But he later said the ad was not meant to indicate any affiliation with President Obama.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1133 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 29, 2012 Wednesday 4:35 AM EST
An unoriginal Obama quote, taken out of context;
Did Obama really say he thought people such as Steve Jobs did not build their business?
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 1273 words
"To say what he said is to say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple Computer or that Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft or that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor Company or that Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's or that Papa John's didn't build Papa John's Pizza. This is the height of foolishness. It shows how out of touch he is with the character of America. It's one more reason his policies have failed. It's one more reason why we have to replace him in November."
- Mitt Romney, July 18, 2012
There are few original ideas in politics, just old arguments.
We were reminded of this as we considered the ruckus over comments by President Obama that his GOP rival, former governor Mitt Romney, criticized as an attack on free enterprise. Romney immediately began jabbing Obama on the campaign trail and the Romney campaign rushed out an attack ad focused on Obama's words - though, as we shall see, it sliced and diced the president's quote to make it seem much worse.
We will stipulate that taking snippets of quotes and twisting them is an age-old political tactic. In May, we gave Two Pinocchios to President Obama for performing out-of-context quote-snipping on Romney's words. But that doesn't make it right. Let's take a look at what Obama actually said, and then how it has been interpreted.
The Facts
The president, during a campaign speech in Roanoke, tried to make the case that wealthy people need to have higher taxes in order to help serve the public good. Here is what he said, with the words used in the ad in bold type:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back. They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
The biggest problem with Romney's ad is that it leaves out just enough chunks of Obama's words - such as a reference to "roads and bridges"- so that it sounds like Obama is attacking individual initiative. The ad deceivingly cuts away from Obama speaking in order to make it seem as if the sentences follow one another, when in fact eight sentences are snipped away.
Suddenly, the word "that" appears as if it is referring to a business, rather than (apparently) to roads and bridges. (Granted, the president's grammar is off.)
But instead of blaming Obama for bad economics, maybe Romney should have called Obama a plagiarizer. That's because Obama's words seem suspiciously similar to a speech last year by Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, which became a YouTube sensation (almost 1 million views).
Here's what Warren said, making the point clearer than Obama did:
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
But, then, maybe Warren is the plagiarizer? Here's how President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it in a message to Congress in 1935:
"Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort. The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market.
"Therefore, in spite of the great importance in our national life of the efforts and ingenuity of unusual individuals, the people in the mass have inevitably helped to make large fortunes possible. Without mass cooperation great accumulations of wealth would be impossible save by unhealthy speculation. As Andrew Carnegie put it, 'Where wealth accrues honorably, the people are always silent partners.' Whether it be wealth achieved through the cooperation of the entire community or riches gained by speculation - in either case the ownership of such wealth or riches represents a great public interest and a great ability to pay.
"People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes. Therefore, the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes."
In other words, this is an argument that Democrats have been making for decades, one that Republicans have every right to reject. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, for instance, understood fully that Obama was talking about roads and still thought his logic was faulty.
Romney, however, descends into silly season when he extrapolates Obama's quote and says that means Obama believes Steve Jobs did not build Apple Computers.
Here's what Obama said when Jobs passed away earlier this year: "By building one of the planet's most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity. By making computers personal and putting the Internet in our pockets, he made the information revolution not only accessible, but intuitive and fun."
That sounds like Obama believes that Jobs really did build his company. He did not mention the roads to Cupertino.
The Pinocchio Test
Obama certainly could take from lessons from Warren or Roosevelt on how to frame this argument in a way that is less susceptible for quote-snipping. And Romney certainly could answer Obama's argument by engaging in a serious discussion about whether the wealthy should pay much more in taxes as a matter of social good and equity. That would be grounds for an elevated, interesting and important debate.
But instead, by focusing on one ill-phrased sentence, Romney and his campaign have decided to pretend that Obama is talking about something different - and then further extrapolated it so that it becomes ridiculous. That's not very original at all.
Three Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1134 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 29, 2012 Wednesday
Met 2 Edition
Ghosts of the South
BYLINE: Harold Meyerson
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A21
LENGTH: 810 words
The Republican ticket may hail from Massachusetts and Wisconsin, but Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan head the most Southernized major U.S. political party since Jefferson Davis's day. In its hostility toward minorities, exploitation of racism, antipathy toward government and suspicion of science, today's Republican Party represents the worst traditions of the South's dankest backwaters.
No other party in U.S. history has done such a 180. Founded as the party of the anti-slavery North and committed to deep governmental involvement in spurring the economy (land-grant colleges, the Homestead Act, the transcontinental railway), today's GOP is the negation of Abraham Lincoln's Republicans. It is almost entirely white - 92 percent, compared with just 58 percent of Democrats. It is disproportionately Southern - 49 percent of Republicans live in the South vs. 39 percent of Democrats.
The beliefs of the white South dominate Republican thinking. As the white share of the U.S. population shrinks and the Latino share rises, Republicans have passed draconian anti-immigrant laws and opposed legislation enabling immigrants brought here as children to gain legal status. They also exploit racist resentments in a way not seen since the Willie Horton spot of 1988. Consider the Romney campaign's ads falsely attacking President Obama for gutting welfare reform. "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job," proclaims one such commercial. "They just send you a welfare check." Obama's plan, as several media fact-checkingmonitors have noted, does nothing of the sort. The spot clearly seeks to resurrect the kind of resentment of African Americans that the GOP exploited back in the days when welfare was a major program. The Romney campaign has evidently concluded, since virtually its entire pool of potential voters is white, that it must rouse the sometime voters among them with such expedients - which explains why it is running more of these ads than any others.
In the anti-government column, the Ryan budget, which House Republicans enthusiastically adopted, would cut taxes disproportionately on the wealthy and halve the share of spending on every domestic, non-entitlement program. It would decimate education, transportation and funding for college students and scientific research. It would bring the nation down to the developmental level of the anti-tax, anti-public-investment Southern states of yore.
The ghosts of Dixie - of the Scopes Trial and the underfunding of public education - also pop up in Republicans' willful resistance to science and, more broadly, simple empiricism. Global warming? Evolution? Homosexuality's causation? How babies get made? Find a robust scientific conclusion and you can find a significant number of Republicans - adducing pseudo-science and faith - who oppose it.
What's remarkable is not that a significant number of Republicans harbor these beliefs but that these beliefs have come to dominate the party. Veteran politicians of the more pluralistic GOP that was around as recently as half a decade ago, including Orrin Hatch and Romney himself, have had to repudiate their past as thoroughly as China's communist apparatchiks did during the Cultural Revolution. An empiricist? Not me, buddy.
But how is it that the South has come North in today's GOP? The fact that Barack Obama is our first black president coincides with the United States' transformation from a majority-white nation to a multiracial country no longer destined to remain the world's hegemon. Augmented by an intractable recession rooted in a crisis of capitalism, this epochal shift has summoned the shades of racial resentment. To the extent that Republicans can depict government as the servant of this rising non-white America (precisely the purpose of Romney's ads), the South's antipathy toward government can find a receptive audience in other regions.
This transformation of the GOP has also been spurred by the Southernization of the economy. The U.S. economy's dominant sector is no longer the unionized manufacturing of the Northeast and Midwest, whose leaders included such Republican moderates as George Romney, and whose white working-class employees were persuaded by their unions to back Democratic candidates. Instead, the economy is dominated by a mix of the low-wage, nonunion retail and service sectors, and by high finance, which has shown itself fiercely opposed to regulation and taxation, happy to reap and shield its profits abroad at the expense of U.S. workers, and willing to invest plenty in a party that does its bidding.
That party is meeting in Tampa this week. Cut through its self-justifying rhetoric and we're left with a GOP whose existential credo is, "We're old, we're white and we want our country back." The rest, as the sages say, is commentary.
meyersonh@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1135 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 28, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Running on Algae, Drawing Anger
BYLINE: By DIANE CARDWELL
SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1474 words
When the Navy put a Pacific fleet through maneuvers on a $12 million cocktail of biofuels this summer, it proved that warships could actually operate on diesel from algae or chicken fat.
''It works in the engines that we have, it works in the aircraft that we have, it works in the ships that we have,'' said Ray Mabus, secretary of the Navy. ''It is seamless.''
The still-experimental fuels are also expensive -- about $27 a gallon for the fuel used in the demonstration, compared with about $3.50 a gallon for conventional military fuels.
And that has made them a flash point in a larger political battle over government financing for new energy technologies.
''You're not the secretary of energy,'' Representative Randy Forbes, a Republican from Virginia, told Mr. Mabus as he criticized the biofuels program at a hearing in February. ''You're the secretary of the Navy.''
The House, controlled by Republicans, has already approved measures that would all but kill Pentagon spending on purchasing or investing in biofuels. A committee in the Senate, led by Democrats, has voted to save the program. The fight will heat up again when Congress takes up the Defense Department's budget again in the fall.
The naval demonstration -- known as the Great Green Fleet -- was part of a $510 million three-year, multiagency program to help the military develop alternatives to conventional fuel. It is a drop in the ocean of the Pentagon's nearly $650 billion annual budget.
But with the Defense Department facing $259 billion in budget cuts over the next five years, some lawmakers argue that the military should not be spending millions on developing new fuel markets when it is buying less equipment and considering cutting salaries.
This phase of the military's exploration of alternative fuels began under President George W. Bush and grew out of a task force that Donald Rumsfeld, then the secretary of defense, convened in 2006 to explore ways to reduce dependence on petroleum. If the military had less need to transport and protect fuel coming from the Middle East, the thinking went, the fighting forces could become more flexible and efficient, with fewer lives put at risk.
In addition to biofuels, early efforts included developing liquid fuels from coal and natural gas for the Air Force, the largest energy user of the armed services. But the gas and coal fuels would not meet cost or environmental requirements, officials said. The Defense Department focused on advanced biofuels, which are generally made from plant and animal feedstocks that don't compete with food uses, which is a concern with common renewable fuels like the corn-based ethanol used in cars.
The federal Renewable Fuel Standard, which sets targets for renewable fuel production and requires a certain amount to be blended into conventional gasoline and diesel, has been the main catalyst for the growth of several companies exploring new technologies.
Investors, however, have been leery of the enormous amounts of cash it can take to bring the fuels from the lab to the gas tank. Industry officials say that having a large, steady customer like the military could attract other investors to help finance large refineries that would bring costs down through economies of scale. Military officials say that their purchases of small amounts for testing has already helped reduce the cost. In 2009, the Pentagon spent roughly $424 a gallon on algae oil from Solazyme.
''Finding a user like the military can rapidly help to scale technologies that then are used in the civilian marketplace -- it becomes a catalyst,'' said Bob Johnsen, chief executive of Primus Green Energy, which is developing fuels from biomass and natural gas. ''If the military becomes a buyer, that becomes a means by which the production facilities can be financed.''
The Defense Department is always vulnerable to charges of overspending -- remember the $7,600 coffee maker? -- but military leaders argue that what they are putting into biofuels is a blip given the potential benefits of reducing their need for Middle Eastern oil, with all its volatilities.
''Our primary rationale is not economic,'' said Sharon E. Burke, assistant secretary of defense for operational energy plans and programs. ''Our job is to defend the country.''
She said biofuel spending was just 7 percent of the $1.6 billion budget the military was requesting for efforts to improve energy usage in field operations in the next fiscal year. Most of the measures are aimed at reducing the need for fuel in the first place, including using diesel electricity generators more efficiently, putting greener engines into vehicles and aircraft, and using hybrid solar generators and batteries in the field.
The Defense Department is also running several demonstration projects on its bases, testing ways to produce and distribute electricity better. And the Army recently put out a request for proposals for $7 billion in renewable energy projects, part of reaching its goal of getting a gigawatt of its electricity -- enough to power roughly 250,000 American homes -- from renewable sources by 2025.
In Congress, there is little apparent opposition to the overall military push toward renewable power generation or energy efficiency.
But the biofuel program has struck a nerve among Republicans who, ever since the government's failed investment in the solar panel maker Solyndra, have been wasting few opportunities to hammer their message that the government should not risk taxpayer money to bolster favored technologies.
Representative Mike Conaway, a Texas Republican who introduced House legislation that would limit biofuel purchasing and production and has been critical of the Great Green Fleet, said Democrats were using the military to pursue an environmental agenda. ''We just want to require the Department of Defense to do exactly what every other American does when they buy fuel: they try to get the best price they can,'' he said.
Many of the lawmakers objecting to the biofuels program -- including some Democrats who crossed the aisle to support new limits -- represent coal country or take money from those in the coal and natural gas industries. Mr. Conaway, who introduced a measure that would open the door for the military to pursue alternative fuels made from coal and natural gas, gets a large share of his campaign contributions from oil and gas interests, according to OpenSecrets.org.
For Senator James Inhofe, who led a similar charge in the Senate, three of his top five contributors, including Koch Industries, make their money from fossil fuels. Although Mr. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, has argued that the biofuels are too expensive, he has helped steer several military contracts to Syntroleum, based in Tulsa, Okla., to develop a liquid natural gas fuel for the Air Force, including one that paid the company roughly $22 a gallon. Syntroleum is still pursuing coal- and natural gas-based fuels, but is also in a partnership with Tyson Foods that supplied the Navy with biofuel made from waste animal fat for the Green Fleet demonstration.
What happens to the military biofuels program could hinge on the fall elections. The Obama administration has opened the government's purse to provide the kinds of stable contracts and investments that companies say are necessary to raise financing to develop and build commercial biofuel production facilities.
While Mitt Romney's position on the military biofuels program is unclear, he has signaled that the Pentagon's emphasis on using more clean energy would not be a priority in his administration. ''When the biggest announcement in his last State of the Union address on improving our military was that the Pentagon will start using more clean energy,'' Mr. Romney said at the V.F.W. convention this summer, ''then you know it's time for a change.''
Should that view prevail, the industry's already slow development could stagnate, with many of the smaller companies potentially going out of business.
''Our dream was to build a renewable fuels company,'' said Jonathan Wolfson, Solazyme's chief executive. Without the military as a guaranteed customer, he said, it will be harder to get there. ''Is it going to stop us?'' he added. ''No.''
PHOTOS: A replenishment oiler, left, delivers a blend of biofuels and traditional fuel to the U.S.S. Princeton during the Great Green Fleet demonstration. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MC3 RYAN MAYES/U.S. NAVY, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS) (B1); Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, left, and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, in the blue shirt, watch the biofuel delivery. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MC3 SAM SHAVERS/U.S. NAVY, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS); Joshua Palomares checks the specific gravity of the fuel on the U.S.S. Nimitz, which used 200,000 gallons of a biofuel blend. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MC3 DEVIN WRAY/U.S. NAVY, VIA EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY) (B5)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/business/military-spending-on-biofuels-draws-fire.html
LOAD-DATE: August 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1136 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 28, 2012 Tuesday
Storm's Approach Complicates Democratic Response to G.O.P. Convention
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 763 words
HIGHLIGHT: With Republicans cautiously proceeding to open their convention on Tuesday, Democrats have decided to move ahead with their no-holds-barred counterprogramming, including several aggressive ads aimed at Mitt Romney and a campaign swing by President Obama.
TAMPA, Fla. - With Republicans cautiously proceeding to open their convention on Tuesday, Democrats have decided to move ahead with their no-holds-barred counterprogramming, including a campaign swing by President Obama as Mitt Romney prepares to accept the nomination.
But the president faces the same political challenge that has caused such difficulty for the Republican convention organizers - how to strike an aggressive campaign posture against his rival as a potential hurricane barrels toward the Gulf Coast and New Orleans.
Mr. Obama will travel to Iowa, Colorado and Virginia for more full-throated rallies in the next two days as Democrats plan to unleash a stream of criticism aimed at Mr. Romney in the hopes of disrupting the Republican convention message.
The Democratic National Committee is preparing to run a full-page ad in the Tampa Tribune linking Mr. Romney to Representative Todd Akin's comments on rape. A plane will fly over the Republican convention with a banner that says "Romney-Ryan-Akin: Too Extreme for Women." And a "Super PAC" backing Mr. Obama will release a new television ad attacking the impact of Mr. Romney's policies on the middle class. It will be the group's largest purchase of commercial time.
All of this will come as Republicans attempt to seize the spotlight with speeches by Mr. Romney, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the vice presidential nominee, and a series of other high-profile Republicans.
The timing is fraught with political danger for Mr. Obama. President George W. Bush suffered a legacy-tarnishing moment when he appeared uncaring in the face of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina.
But Mr. Bush, who won re-election in 2004, was not forced to juggle an emergency response with the sensitive demands of an intense presidential campaign. Wednesday is the seventh anniversary of the day in 2005 that Hurricane Katrina made landfall.
Tropical Storm Isaac is not a storm of that magnitude, though the impact of any hurricane on property and lives is hard to assess in advance. It is scheduled to make landfall sometime in the next two days.
Difficult questions loom for Mr. Obama and his political advisers as they plot their attacks. If the storm wreaks havoc on the Gulf Coast, should Democrats ease up? Does Mr. Obama cut short his campaign swing, or continue to rally his supporters against Mr. Romney amid images of mass evacuations and property damage?
And perhaps most vital: When - if at all - should Mr. Obama make a visit to the site of any serious damage by the storm?
Mr. Obama could, in theory, go to the Gulf as early as Thursday or Friday, moving quickly to prove his administration's commitment to the region in the hopes of avoiding the mistakes that Mr. Bush made.
But doing so just as Mr. Romney is accepting the nomination of his party on Thursday would be seen as a political punch in the nose. Whatever political benefits Mr. Obama might receive from moving quickly might backfire in this highly-charged political environment.
On the other hand, Mr. Obama could choose to wait before traveling to the Gulf, in deference to the political activities in Tampa. But doing so might open him to charges that he's letting politics get in the way of his presidential duties.
The Democratic offensive will include a new ad by Priorities USA Action that features a small business owner in Massachusetts who says she voted for Mr. Romney and donated to his campaigns. But she says she plans to vote for Mr. Obama in the fall.
"Governor Romney promised that he would bring jobs to this state. By the time Governor Romney left office, we had fallen to 47th in the nation in terms of job growth," says Olive Chase in the ad. "I feel like I was duped by Mitt Romney."
The group says the ad will run online and on television in Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia as part of a $30 million campaign. The group was criticized over the summer for an ad that featured a worker accusing Mr. Romney's actions of contributing to his wife's death from cancer.
In addition to the newspaper ad and the plane's banner, the Democratic National Committee is also releasing a new web video accusing Mr. Romney of being a "job destroyer."
Meanwhile, Republicans will show a video on Tuesday at the convention that features voters who supported Mr. Obama in 2008 but say they have decided to vote for Mr. Romney this year.
"I caucused for him and went to the rallies and even donated to his campaign," one woman says in the video. "I'm not supporting Barack Obama this time because I just don't see things getting better."
LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1137 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 28, 2012 Tuesday 9:44 PM EST
Court strikes down Texas map;
The decision could mean having to redraw a congressional lines by 2014.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 452 words
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Ron Paul supporters come up short in rules fight
Ron Paul, Republican problem child
What kind of keynote speaker will Chris Christie be? (VIDEO)
People dont trust either party. At all.
Primary day: Five things to watch for in Arizona and Oklahoma
Rob Portman: Being cool doesnt fix the economy
What to watch for on Tuesday at the Republican National Convention
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
*A federal court hasunanimouslystruck downTexas' new congressional map, finding it in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The state's Republican attorney general will appeal the decision, but if it stands, it means that the state would have to draw new maps before 2014. The state's current elections are taking place under interim maps.
* Republicans have officially adopted the party platform, which you can read here.
* Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said he would not send Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) any money even if he was tied with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D). Akin's campaign didn't like thatstatementvery much."Reince Priebus' comments are extremely disappointing. He claims the mantle of freedom, liberty and the good of America, but this betrays his apparent personal vendetta against ToddAkin," Akin campaign manager Perry Akin said in a statement.
* Arizona DemocratRichard Carmona has timed the release of his first TV ad tocoincidewith primary election day. The spot underscores Carmona's military background and work as surgeon general. Rep. Jeff Flake is expected to advance easily from today's GOP Senate primary to a matchup against Carmona in the fall.
WHAT YOUSHOULDN'T MISS:
* This Friday, Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will hold a farewell victory rally in Lakeland, Florida, the day after Republican National Convention comes to an end.
* A new Quinnipiac University survey shows asurprisinglytight race for the Senate in Connecticut, with Republican Linda McMahon leading Rep. Chris Murphy, 49 percent to 46 percent.
* Excerpts of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's speechat the GOP conventionlater this evening show he will stick to a theme ofattacking President Obama for saying that business owners didnt build their success all on their own.
* The fishing industry is the subject of Sen. Scott Brown's (R-Mass.)latest TV ad. "Our fisherman deserve better, and I'm going to be fighting to protect them," Brown says in the spot. Brown is riding his famous pickup truck in the commercial.
THE FIX MIX:
Room for one more?
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1138 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 28, 2012 Tuesday 9:01 PM EST
What to watch for on Tuesday at the Republican National Convention;
Get your Republican National Convention CliffsNotes here!
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
LENGTH: 962 words
TAMPA - After a day-long postponement due to Tropical Storm Isaac, the Republican National Convention begins in earnest Tuesday with a jam-packed schedule of events beginning at 2 p.m. and running all the way through 11 p.m. eastern.
While the Fix will be watching - and tweeting! - most of the proceedings, you may not be so lucky (or unlucky depending on how you feel about politics). With your limited time in mind, we are dedicating our Morning Fix from today through Thursday to flagging a few must-watch speeches during the day's convention schedule. Think of it as Convention CliffsNotes.
* John Boehner (7 p.m. hour speech): While the addresses by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, which are both scheduled for the 7 p.m. hour, are likely to draw the lion's share of attention, the House Speaker's speech is likely to be more entertaining than either. Boehner is among the most frank politicians operating at a very high national level - he said Monday that the party platform should fit on a single sheet of paper - and that bluntness alone makes his speech worth tuning into.
* Kelly Ayotte (8 p.m. hour): For much of the last few months, we had the New Hampshire Senator in the top 10 of our Veepstakes rankings. Though she wasn't ultimately the pick (or close to it), Ayotte is someone with the real capacity to become a national star in the coming years. She's young with a law and order background. (She served as New Hampshire Attorney General before being elected to the Senate in 2010.) She's articulate and pragmatic. And she's conservative but not too conservative. In a night packed with potential national GOP stars - Govs. Nikki Haley, Scott Walker and Brian Sandoval to name three - Ayotte is the one we will be watching the closest.
* Ann Romney (10 p.m. hour): There is a case to be made that Ann Romney's speech about her husband is as important as Mitt Romney's speech about himself. What's clear from thelatest Washington Post-ABC News poll is that the economy continues to drag President Obama down and yet Romney isn't able to surge forward because, well, people just don't like him much. The only way for Romney to narrow that likability gap is to show people that he is more than just a rich business guy. And the person best equipped - and, yes, better equipped than Romney himself - to tell the story of Mitt the man is his wife.
* Chris Christie (10 p.m. hour): The New Jersey governor's keynote address will be viewed by most savvy political types as a speech as much about what Christie's future than Romney's present. Christie is clearly reveling in his time as the Republican party's biggest star - he was mobbed by reporters and cameramen when he toured the convention hall Monday - and he and his political team understand the importance of giving a well reviewed speech tonight. Expect the Christie conservatives have fallen in love with - no nonsense, tough talking - to be on full display. The question/challenge for Christie is whether he can go big; can he find a moment that shows him as the sort of visionary leader the party could be looking for in 2016 if Romney falls short?
Priorities ad features former Romney supporter: The pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action is going up with a new ad featuring a Massachusetts small business owner and independent former Romney supporter who says she was "duped" by Romney when she voted for him for governor in 2002.
"Gov. Romney promised that he would bring jobs to this state," says the woman, Olive Chase. "By the time Gov. Romney left office, we had fallen to 47th in the nation in terms of job growth. Gov. Romney cares about big business, he cares about tax cuts for wealthy people, and I certainly do not believe that he cares about my hard-working employees."
The woman then says she will vote for Obama.
The ad will run in Florida both on TV and online. It will also run in four swing states: Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia. It is part of a $30 million ad campaign and represents the super PAC's emerging transition from Romney's business record to his record as governor.
FactCheck.org notes that, while growth under Romney ranked 47th in the country during his entire term, it actually improved from 50th in his first year to 28th in his final year.
"It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left," FactCheck.org wrote.
Meanwhile, a new web video debuting tomorrow at the Republican National Convention features former Obama supporters talking about why they are disappointed in his presidency. The ad will be played at the convention Tuesday night.
Fixbits:
Romney will arrive in Tampa on Tuesday.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a veteran of presidential debate prep, will play Obama in Romney's debate prep.
Top Romney surrogate John Sununu pushes for comprehensive immigration reform.
Obama's campaign is selling buttons featuring an image of his birth certificate for $5.
Ron Paul delegates say they will vote against newly proposed GOP rules that would have made it harder for Paul to amass delegates in this year's GOP primary.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a Mormon, says Romney doesn't need to talk about his Mormonism.
Elizabeth Warren (D) outraised Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) $3.7 million to $2.3 million in the first half of the third quarter.
Must-reads:
"Rob Portman Sees His Role in the Senate, Not Administration" - Steven T. Dennis, Roll Call
"Outside funds keeps Mitt in the game" - Robin Bravender and Dave Levinthal, Politico
"Todd Akins rape comments find sympathy among conservative women in his district" - Stephanie McCrummen, Washington Post
"Romney Seen Pulled 2 Ways Over Economy" - Binyamin Appelbaum, New York Times
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1139 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 28, 2012 Tuesday 8:12 PM EST
BYLINE: E.J. Dionne Jr.;Ed Rogers;Greg Sargent;Jennifer Rubin
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 970 words
The Isaac effect
The influence of this year's political conventions was always going to be limited, even before Isaac blew away the first day of the GOP conclave without actually doing much here in Tampa. As conventions became more highly produced party commercials, they became less and less attractive to viewers - and networks.
The Isaac effect, however, goes well beyond the disruption it has caused to the Republicans' schedule. For good reasons, media organizations are transferring people toward New Orleans. The anniversary of Katrina politicizes the story. It is inevitable that Barack Obama's handling of this storm and its aftermath will be compared with George W. Bush's handling of Katrina.
On its face, this is good news for Democrats: Any reminder of the response to Katrina recalls the aspects of the Bush years voters would prefer to forget. These are the failures that helped Obama win four years ago.
Still, the pressure on Obama to perform well if this storm hits New Orleans hard - and everyone hopes it doesn't - will be enormous. In the extraordinarily partisan pre-election environment, the administration's every failure or shortcoming will be magnified by the GOP. Every crisis is an opportunity for an incumbent, and in such crises lurk great dangers.
Isaac, its impact and the administration's handling of the storm's effects all seem likely to loom larger this week than Mitt Romney's big moment. If Romney breaks through despite this, it will be the mark of an extraordinary performance.
- E.J. Dionne Jr.
The good news in Tampa
Early Monday my concern was that there were too many pols, too many journalists and not enough convention to keep everyone busy. Given the contest among the mainstream media to see who can broadcast the craziest thing said by a Republican, that's a prescription for real trouble.
But the atmosphere here is more buoyant than I expected. I've been to every convention since 1976, and the positive vibe here is powerful. GOP leaders from outside the Beltway think Romney is going to win. There is a lot of talk about dispirited Democrats back home.
President Obama is disdained by his opponents, who see him as a failed president who can't pull out of a dive. Many here think the race won't even be close. And the delegates I've talked to are determined.
- Ed Rogers
Romney's challenges
The latest Post-ABC News poll illustrates the challenges Mitt Romney faces as he attempts to reintroduce himself to the American people. It shows Romney and President Obama locked in a statistical tie, with Romney leading 47 percent to 46 percent among registered voters nationally (Obama leads among all adults, 49 percent to 42 percent.).
While Romney holds an edge on the generic question of who would do a better job handling the economy (50 percent to 43 percent), Obama holds a significant advantage on a range of other questions: who is more trusted on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage (Obama leads 52 percent to 38 percent); who is more trusted to address women's issues (51 percent to 35 percent); who seems like the more friendly and likable person (61 percent to 27 percent); who is seen to favor the middle class more than the wealthy (61 percent to 30 percent); and who better understands Americans' economic problems (47 percent to 40 percent).
Forty-three percent say they are confident the economy will get on track if Obama is reelected; 56 percent say they are not. The numbers for Romney were a virtually identical 43 percent/55 percent.
Swing voters may be concluding that neither man has the answer to their economic problems. As I've been saying, Obama's best hope may be to fight Romney to a draw on the economy by persuading voters that, even if they are disillusioned with the pace of the recovery, neither does Romney have the answer. That's the goal of the Obama attacks on Romney's years at Bain Capital (undercutting his core case that private-sector experience has equipped him to turn around the country).
This would free up the election to be fought on turf where Obama holds a clear advantage. At the convention, Romney needs to make a more persuasive case that he has the answer to people's economic problems and needs to start closing the gap on likability, empathy and the interests of the middle class, while casting himself as less threatening to women and minorities.
The question is what material Romney has left to accomplish all this.
- Greg Sargent
Myths about conservatives
With no real politics to report on yet in Tampa, I thought I would dispel some misconceptions about Republicans.
1. The GOP has been taken over by the tea party. This year, Republicans have gathered behind the least conservative candidate. If anything, the tea party has been absorbed into the GOP and accepted direction from party leaders. Consider that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) got majorities to pass a continuing resolution and then the debt-ceiling deal.
2. The GOP is obsessed with social issues. Mitt Romney barely talks about social issues. It is Democrats who latched onto Todd Akin's remarks and are reportedly set to emphasize abortion at their convention.
3. The GOP doesn't believe in community. President Obama likes to say that Republicans want everyone to be "on his own." In fact, conservatives believe family, communities, churches and other civil institutions are critical building blocks in society. They favor investing authority in the level of government closest to the people. (See Romney's speech at Liberty University or Paul Ryan's speech Monday in Wisconsin.)
- Jennifer Rubin
For complete coverage of the Republican National Convention, visit washingtonpost.com/opinions.
LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1140 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 28, 2012 Tuesday 8:12 PM EST
Polarized to a draw
BYLINE: Michael Gerson
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 778 words
TAMPA
The 2012 presidential election raises two seemingly contradictory questions:
First, given a stagnant economy and a sour public mood, why isn't Mitt Romney doing better? A nation that overwhelmingly views itself as traveling on the wrong track should be more favorable to the challenger. Unemployment is high, consumer confidence is low, and yet the race is roughly even. Second, given the continental pounding of negative ads Romney has lately received, why isn't he doing worse? The Obama campaign - recently outspending Romney by 3-to-1 - has delivered the attacks it believes most effective: Bain, Medicare, unreleased tax returns. But President Obama's lead in the polling average has dropped from four points in early August to about one point today.
Both questions actually have the same answer. The reason Romney does not dominate or collapse is because the American electorate is evenly divided and highly polarized. Obama has spent the last year effectively shoring up the Democratic coalition, including minorities, single women and college-educated voters. Romney has (for the most part) solidified the support of reliably Republican voters. Each candidate has gained his expected 45 percent or 46 percent of the electorate - but not much more.In an ideologically charged election, decided voters are not easily budged from their natural predispositions. Republicans tend to think a second Obama term would mean the consolidation of a European economic and social model on U.S. soil. Democrats tend to believe that GOP rule would incorporate the least attractive elements of puritanism and social Darwinism. In this environment, a TV commercial on welfare reform or Bain Capital doesn't change many minds. It becomes easy for the candidates to drop $1 billion on advertisements that barely move the numbers.
This divided, ideological electorate represents the success of Obama's political strategy. Of course he would have preferred to run as the unifying, transformative candidate of 2008. But his uncreative liberalism and poor economic performance did not allow it. So he settled on polarization as his least bad strategy - pitting the middle class against the wealthy and embracing the culture war on issues such as abortion. Republican strategist Alex Castellanos describes Obama's approach: "If you can't win the middle, shrink the middle. Polarize until there is no middle left." This strategy has maintained Obama as a slight front-runner, which, in a cranky, discontented nation, is a major political accomplishment. Romney has done very little to challenge or overturn Obama's approach. A tough primary season pushed Romney rightward on a range of issues. And he seems disinclined to pick moderating fights with his party as Bill Clinton did in 1992 or George W. Bush did in 2000.
Future Republican leaders - say, Marco Rubio or Chris Christie - may attempt to rebrand their party. Romney has embraced the brand, pronouncing it filling, fiber-rich and nutritious. His campaign seems convinced that a fairly generic Republican who is viewed as responsible and competent will win in the end. This is also not an irrational political calculation. It doesn't seem likely that the (rather small) margin of undecided voters will break late toward the incumbent when they are convinced that the nation is headed in the wrong direction. If Romney is seen as a broadly acceptable alternative on Election Day, he is likely to win.
This is why Obama must make Romney unacceptable. It is not enough for him to be mistaken. He must be seen as radical, callous, secretive, heartless and even criminal. This is Obama's hope: to shore up his base while destroying Romney as a viable alternative among undecided voters. It would probably be easier to play Romney's political hand. Obama has been in the electoral danger zone for some time. Since the summer of 2011, his job approval rating has almost never been north of 50 percent - a durable public judgment. As a result, Romney has a fairly low bar to clear. He doesn't need to be a charismatic ideological leader like Ronald Reagan, or a party reformer like the younger Bush. He just needs to appear competent, well-intentioned and reassuring.
Reassurance will be the main goal of Romney's convention speech and debate performances. The platform for these dives is high; their degree of difficulty is not.
Either Romney or Obama, however, will face the same challenge. Their victory is likely to reinforce, not change, the fundamental dynamic of American politics. They will govern a polarized nation after a polarizing election.
michaelgerson@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1141 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 28, 2012 Tuesday 5:11 PM EST
Answering readers' questions about Medicare;
Here are some answers to basic questions about the tit-for-tat campaign rhetoric.
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 1117 words
"Senator McCain would pay for part of his [health care] plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare, $882 billion worth...It ain't right."
- Then Sen. Barack Obama, seen in a new ad by the Romney campaign
We returned from vacation to find lots of questions from readers about Medicare. The two campaigns have been engaged in a tit-for-tat war of words that, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, appears to have resulted in a draw so far. For the moment, we will not delve into the details of those ads except to note with amusement this new Romney ad that accurately quotes Obama from four years ago.
Perhaps one reason why the Medicare fight has resulted in a draw is because both parties have played rhetorical games with the old-age health program.
Democrats in 1996 effectively attacked Republicans for proposing "cuts" in Medicare, but then after the election cut a deal with Republicans allowing some of those same reductions. In 2008, Obama claimed McCain, if he became president, would have made "drastic cuts in Medicare" to fund his health program. Then Republicans turned the tables in 2010, attacking spending reductions implemented by Democrats to help fund the new health care law.
Who wouldn't be confused? Both sides profess to be concerned about the financial health of the program, but then bash each other with scary rhetoric in the very next election.
Here are some answers to key questions that have arisen in recent weeks.
Did Obama cut $700 billion from Medicare?
The current Medicare system, in place since the mid-1960s, is essentially a government-run health-care program, with hospital and doctors' fees paid by the government, though beneficiaries also pay premiums for some services as well as deductibles and co-insurance.
During the primaries, Republicans used to claim that Obama funded his health care plan with $500 billion in cuts.
So how did it balloon to a $700 billion figure? There is a simple explanation. The Congressional Budget Office last month issued a new estimate based on a different - and later - 10-year time frame (2013-2022). Of course, Republicans decided to pick the biggest number possible.
But, as we have repeatedly explained, Medicare spending is not being reduced. It still goes up year after year.
The $700 billion figure (technically, $716 billion) comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as "the baseline") and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. Moreover, the savings mostly are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries. (It is worth noting that, given past practices, the Medicare actuary has doubted whether such cuts will ever come to pass.)
The proposed reduction in spending actually strengthens the long-term health of the Medicare program, according to Medicare trustees reports. And spending on Medicare over that 10-year period would still be $7.8 trillion.
In fact, House Republicans adopted many of these same cuts in their own budget. (They argue they devote the savings to reforming Medicare, not funding a new entitlement.) Both parties agree that controls are needed on Medicare spending - that is the only way that the Medicare trust funds last longer - but they disagree over the best path forward. We have generally given Republicans Two Pinocchios for such claims.
Did Obama use Medicare savings to fund 'Obamacare'?
All government money is fungible, but depending on how this claim is phrased, one could certainly make this rhetorical point. In the health care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. As we have previously examined, this sort of "double-counting" accounting has been used by both parties for decades.
The Obama health care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program's financial condition.
Under the concept of the unified budget, money that is collected by the federal government for whatever purpose (such as Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes) is spent on whatever bills are coming due at that time. Social Security and Medicare will get a credit for taxes collected that are not immediately spent on Social Security, but those taxes are quickly devoted to other federal spending.
In sum, the health care bill actually puts Medicare on a more solid financial footing. Also, the health care law improved some benefits for seniors, such as making preventive care free and closing a gap in prescription drug coverage known as the "doughnut hole" - improvements that Republicans would repeal.
Is Medicare going 'bankrupt'?
Nope. This is an old song played by both parties. There are different parts of Medicare - here's a guide - much of which is paid from general revenues and premiums. Part A, which pays hospitals, has a "trust fund," made up of special-issue Treasury bonds, that always seems to be on the edge of running dry. But even so, the payroll tax could pay most estimated expenditures for decades. And does anyone doubt Congress would not step in and fill any gaps?
Will Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare force seniors to pay $6,400 more than they do today?
This is an old Democratic attack line, based on old data concerning an earlier version of Ryan's plan. (Sometimes President Obama refers to the "original" plan in his remarks.) Just last month we gave Obama Two Pinocchios for making a similar claim.
Readers should always be wary of dire predictions far in the future. The $6,400 figure refers to analysis of a Congressional Budget Office estimate of a different and less generous version of Ryan's plan in the year 2022; the CBO made no such estimates of the new version, saying it did "not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects for the specified path of Medicare spending" but that "beneficiaries might face higher costs."
The new Ryan plan, moreover, retains the option of traditional Medicare, while the old version did not.
Our colleagues at PolitiFact reported that a study published this month by the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests the out of pocket payment for traditional Medicare would be under $800 a year if the Ryan plan had been in place in 2009. That's obviously significantly lower than the figure in Democratic attack ads.
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1142 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 28, 2012 Tuesday 4:12 PM EST
Ad watch: Romney says Hispanics are 'hurting';
New Romney ad geared at Hispanic voters
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 108 words
The ad, "Juntos":
What it says: "Hispanics are hurting, with so many unemployed, and those who are working, are having to do more with less. Families are struggling to save their homes and businesses, theyve been forced to use their hard-earned savings to pay bills. Can we endure four more years of this poor economy? You deserve better." (The ad is in English, with Spanish subtitles.)
What it means: The economy, under Obama's watch, has made life worse for the Hispanic community. I can do better.
Who will see it: The Romney campaign did not provide specifics about where it is airing.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1143 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 28, 2012 Tuesday 12:47 PM EST
Priorities USA ad: 'Duped' by Romney;
Priorities USA ad hits Romney
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 55 words
The pro-President Obama super PAC is trying to undercut day one of the Republican National Convention with a new spot featuring a Mitt Romney voter with buyer's remorse.
Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg responds:This is a desperate attempt by the Presidents allies to try and distract voters from President Obamas failed record."
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1144 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 28, 2012 Tuesday
Every Edition
BYLINE: E.J. Dionne Jr.;Ed Rogers;Greg Sargent;Jennifer Rubin
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 944 words
The Isaac effect
The influence of this year's political conventions was always going to be limited, even before Isaac blew away the first day of the GOP conclave without actually doing much here in Tampa. As conventions became more highly produced party commercials, they became less and less attractive to viewers - and networks.
The Isaac effect, however, goes well beyond the disruption it has caused to the Republicans' schedule. For good reasons, media organizations are transferring people toward New Orleans. The anniversary of Katrina politicizes the story. It is inevitable that Barack Obama's handling of this storm and its aftermath will be compared with George W. Bush's handling of Katrina.
On its face, this is good news for Democrats: Any reminder of the response to Katrina recalls the aspects of the Bush years voters would prefer to forget. These are the failures that helped Obama win four years ago.
Still, the pressure on Obama to perform well if this storm hits New Orleans hard - and everyone hopes it doesn't - will be enormous. In the extraordinarily partisan pre-election environment, the administration's every failure or shortcoming will be magnified by the GOP. Every crisis is an opportunity for an incumbent, and in such crises lurk great dangers.
Isaac, its impact and the administration's handling of the storm's effects all seem likely to loom larger this week than Mitt Romney's big moment. If Romney breaks through despite this, it will be the mark of an extraordinary performance.
- E.J. Dionne Jr.
The good news in Tampa
Early Monday my concern was that there were too many pols, too many journalists and not enough convention to keep everyone busy. Given the contest among the mainstream media to see who can broadcast the craziest thing said by a Republican, that's a prescription for real trouble.
But the atmosphere here is more buoyant than I expected. I've been to every convention since 1976, and the positive vibe here is powerful. GOP leaders from outside the Beltway think Romney is going to win. There is a lot of talk about dispirited Democrats back home.
President Obama is disdained by his opponents, who see him as a failed president who can't pull out of a dive. Many here think the race won't even be close. And the delegates I've talked to are determined.
- Ed Rogers
Romney's challenges
The latest Post-ABC News poll illustrates the challenges Mitt Romney faces as he attempts to reintroduce himself to the American people. It shows Romney and President Obama locked in a statistical tie, with Romney leading 47 percent to 46 percent among registered voters nationally (Obama leads among all adults, 49 percent to 42 percent.).
While Romney holds an edge on the generic question of who would do a better job handling the economy (50 percent to 43 percent), Obama holds a significant advantage on a range of other questions: who is more trusted on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage (Obama leads 52 percent to 38 percent); who is more trusted to address women's issues (51 percent to 35 percent); who seems like the more friendly and likable person (61 percent to 27 percent); who is seen to favor the middle class more than the wealthy (61 percent to 30 percent); and who better understands Americans' economic problems (47 percent to 40 percent).
Forty-three percent say they are confident the economy will get on track if Obama is reelected; 56 percent say they are not. The numbers for Romney were a virtually identical 43 percent/55 percent.
Swing voters may be concluding that neither man has the answer to their economic problems. As I've been saying, Obama's best hope may be to fight Romney to a draw on the economy by persuading voters that, even if they are disillusioned with the pace of the recovery, neither does Romney have the answer. That's the goal of the Obama attacks on Romney's years at Bain Capital (undercutting his core case that private-sector experience has equipped him to turn around the country).
This would free up the election to be fought on turf where Obama holds a clear advantage. At the convention, Romney needs to make a more persuasive case that he has the answer to people's economic problems and needs to start closing the gap on likability, empathy and the interests of the middle class, while casting himself as less threatening to women and minorities.
The question is what material Romney has left to accomplish all this.
- Greg Sargent
Myths about conservatives
With no real politics to report on yet in Tampa, I thought I would dispel some misconceptions about Republicans.
1. The GOP has been taken over by the tea party. This year, Republicans have gathered behind the least conservative candidate. If anything, the tea party has been absorbed into the GOP and accepted direction from party leaders. Consider that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) got majorities to pass a continuing resolution and then the debt-ceiling deal.
2. The GOP is obsessed with social issues.Mitt Romney barely talks about social issues. It is Democrats who latched onto Todd Akin's remarks and are reportedly set to emphasize abortion at their convention.
3. The GOP doesn't believe in community. President Obama likes to say that Republicans want everyone to be "on his own." In fact, conservatives believe family, communities, churches and other civil institutions are critical building blocks in society. They favor investing authority in the level of government closest to the people. (See Romney's speech at Liberty University or Paul Ryan's speech Monday in Wisconsin.)
- Jennifer Rubin
For complete coverage of the Republican National Convention, visit washingtonpost.com/opinions.
LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1145 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 28, 2012 Tuesday
Every Edition
Polarized to a draw
BYLINE: Michael Gerson
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 768 words
DATELINE: TAMPA
TAMPA
The 2012 presidential election raises two seemingly contradictory questions:
First, given a stagnant economy and a sour public mood, why isn't Mitt Romney doing better? A nation that overwhelmingly views itself as traveling on the wrong track should be more favorable to the challenger. Unemployment is high, consumer confidence is low, and yet the race is roughly even.
Second, given the continental pounding of negative ads Romney has lately received, why isn't he doing worse? The Obama campaign - recently outspending Romney by 3-to-1 - has delivered the attacks it believes most effective: Bain, Medicare, unreleased tax returns. But President Obama's lead in the polling average has dropped from four points in early August to about one point today.
Both questions actually have the same answer. The reason Romney does not dominate or collapse is because the American electorate is evenly divided and highly polarized. Obama has spent the last year effectively shoring up the Democratic coalition, including minorities, single women and college-educated voters. Romney has (for the most part) solidified the support of reliably Republican voters. Each candidate has gained his expected 45 percent or 46 percent of the electorate - but not much more.
In an ideologically charged election, decided voters are not easily budged from their natural predispositions. Republicans tend to think a second Obama term would mean the consolidation of a European economic and social model on U.S. soil. Democrats tend to believe that GOP rule would incorporate the least attractive elements of puritanism and social Darwinism. In this environment, a TV commercial on welfare reform or Bain Capital doesn't change many minds. It becomes easy for the candidates to drop $1 billion on advertisements that barely move the numbers.
This divided, ideological electorate represents the success of Obama's political strategy. Of course he would have preferred to run as the unifying, transformative candidate of 2008. But his uncreative liberalism and poor economic performance did not allow it. So he settled on polarization as his least bad strategy - pitting the middle class against the wealthy and embracing the culture war on issues such as abortion. Republican strategist Alex Castellanos describes Obama's approach: "If you can't win the middle, shrink the middle. Polarize until there is no middle left." This strategy has maintained Obama as a slight front-runner, which, in a cranky, discontented nation, is a major political accomplishment.
Romney has done very little to challenge or overturn Obama's approach. A tough primary season pushed Romney rightward on a range of issues. And he seems disinclined to pick moderating fights with his party as Bill Clinton did in 1992 or George W. Bush did in 2000.
Future Republican leaders - say, Marco Rubio or Chris Christie - may attempt to rebrand their party. Romney has embraced the brand, pronouncing it filling, fiber-rich and nutritious. His campaign seems convinced that a fairly generic Republican who is viewed as responsible and competent will win in the end. This is also not an irrational political calculation. It doesn't seem likely that the (rather small) margin of undecided voters will break late toward the incumbent when they are convinced that the nation is headed in the wrong direction. If Romney is seen as a broadly acceptable alternative on Election Day, he is likely to win.
This is why Obama must make Romney unacceptable. It is not enough for him to be mistaken. He must be seen as radical, callous, secretive, heartless and even criminal. This is Obama's hope: to shore up his base while destroying Romney as a viable alternative among undecided voters.
It would probably be easier to play Romney's political hand. Obama has been in the electoral danger zone for some time. Since the summer of 2011, his job approval rating has almost never been north of 50 percent - a durable public judgment. As a result, Romney has a fairly low bar to clear. He doesn't need to be a charismatic ideological leader like Ronald Reagan, or a party reformer like the younger Bush. He just needs to appear competent, well-intentioned and reassuring.
Reassurance will be the main goal of Romney's convention speech and debate performances. The platform for these dives is high; their degree of difficulty is not.
Either Romney or Obama, however, will face the same challenge. Their victory is likely to reinforce, not change, the fundamental dynamic of American politics. They will govern a polarized nation after a polarizing election.
michaelgerson@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1146 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 27, 2012 Monday
The New York Times on the Web
First Day Canceled, but G.O.P. Show Goes On
BYLINE: By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; National Desk; Pg.
LENGTH: 822 words
TAMPA, Fla., -- Tropical Storm Isaac began to shift westward early Sunday morning, raising hopes that the city might escape the brunt of the weather that forced the cancellation of the first day of the Republican party's national convention.
But forecasters said the storm was likely to strengthen, perhaps to a Category 2 hurricane, by the time it slammed into the Gulf Coast. They said the storm could hit close to New Orleans by Wednesday night, at the height of the Republican events later this week.
That could rob attention from the party's nomination of Mitt Romney as their presidential candidate as television networks offer split-screen coverage of the Republican convention and the landfall of the storm at the same time.
''Competing with a major weather event'' is a concern, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell Jr. of Virginia, a strong supporter of Mr. Romney, said on ABC's ''This Week'' program. ''But I think we'll still get a fairly good amount of attention and the message will be good.''
Delegates began to arrive in Tampa on Sunday morning as convention organizers said they were still working on a revised schedule of speakers and events ahead of Mr. Romney's formal acceptance of the presidential nomination on Thursday.
Organizers on Saturday evening canceled Monday's scheduled events, citing safety concerns. Forecasters said Tampa was still likely to see a storm surge that could cause flooding in low-lying areas, including the Tampa convention center.
''Obviously, we're going to take it as it comes, we're going to be nimble,'' Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said on Fox News Sunday. ''We have to fire Obama and save this country.''
Before the storm's arrival, many events continued as planned. Organizers said a welcoming party at the Tropicana Field on Sunday night would go ahead, though with extra tents. A rally with Representative Ron Paul of Texas would take place as scheduled, as would events by the former presidential contenders Representative Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, a former pizza executive. A Florida Republican committee said it would not cancel plans to honor Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality show host, at a dinner.
''Donald Trump is bigger than any hurricane and the event will go on as planned,'' Joe Gruters, the chairman of the Republican Party in Sarasota, told WTSP-TV in Tampa.
The looming storm did not dampen the intensity of the political dueling on Sunday morning as representatives from both parties attempted to define the fall debate ahead of the start of the Republican convention.
In an interview broadcast on Fox News Sunday, Mr. Romney said that his eight-year march toward the Republican nomination was not ''an ego ride'' and that he felt a sense of responsibility to defeat Mr. Obama.
''I'm focused on not letting down the millions of people,'' Mr. Romney said during the interview. ''I don't feel ebullient -- 'Aren't I great for having gotten this.' ''
Mr. Romney again accused the president of running a ''campaign of anger and divisiveness.'' And he waved aside attacks on his use of foreign bank accounts for his investments, saying that they did not give him any tax savings.
''I did live my life,'' Mr. Romney said when asked why he did not instruct his money managers to avoid such investments. ''I'm not going to try to hide who I am.''
President Obama's campaign released a fake movie trailer accusing Mr. Romney of using the convention to reinvent himself after his advisers concluded that he is ''stiff'' and ''aloof'' and cannot win without rebooting his campaign.
''The Do-Over,'' the trailer ends. ''Rated 'N' for 'Not Gonna Work.' ''
Mr. Romney's campaign, meanwhile, released a television ad showing the president in 2008 attacking his rival for cutting Medicare by saying, ''It ain't right.'' The ad accuses the president of cutting $716 billion from the health care program for the elderly.
''Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare,'' the ad says. ''No Mr. President, it ain't right.''
Also on Sunday, Charlie Crist, the former Republican governor of Florida who became a pariah in his party when he ran for the Senate as an independent, formally endorsed Mr. Obama.
''President Obama has a strong record of doing what is best for America and Florida, and he built it by spending more time worrying about what his decisions would mean for the people than for his political fortunes,'' Mr. Crist wrote in a column Sunday in The Tampa Bay Times. ''That's what makes him the right leader for our times, and that's why I'm proud to stand with him today.''
Lenny Curry, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party, said in a statement that Mr. Crist was ''trying to shed his skin for a political comeback.''
''Despite the threat Florida is facing from a severe storm, Charlie Crist has demonstrated, yet again, that his political ambition will always come before the needs of Floridians,'' Mr. Curry said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/us/politics/republican-convention-tampa.html
LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1147 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
August 27, 2012 Monday
Making the Election About Race
BYLINE: THOMAS B. EDSALL
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 2102 words
HIGHLIGHT: The latest ads for the Romney-Ryan ticket suggest that under President Obama money goes from the deserving to the undeserving.
The Republican ticket is flooding the airwaves with commercials that develop two themes designed to turn the presidential contest into a racially freighted resource competition pitting middle class white voters against the minority poor.
Ads that accuse President Obama of gutting the work requirements enacted in the 1996 welfare reform legislation present the first theme. Ads alleging that Obama has taken $716 billion from Medicare - a program serving an overwhelmingly white constituency - in order to provide health coverage to the heavily black and Hispanic poor deliver the second. The ads are meant to work together, to mutually reinforce each other's claims.
The announcer in one of the Romney campaign's TV ads focusing on welfare tells viewers:
In 1996, President Clinton and a bipartisan Congress helped end welfare as we know it by requiring work for welfare. But on July 12, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping the work requirement. Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you a welfare check. And welfare-to-work goes back to being plain old welfare. Mitt Romney will restore the work requirement because it works.
The ad includes the following text and photograph:
Web sites devoted to examining the veracity of political commercials have sharply criticized the ad.
The Washington Post's fact checker, Glenn Kessler, gave the welfare ads his lowest rating, four Pinocchios. The Tampa Bay Times's Politifact was equally harsh, describing the ads as "a drastic distortion" warranting a "pants on fire" rating. The welfare commercial, according to Politifact, "inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance."
Sharp criticism has done nothing to hold back the Romney campaign from continuing its offensive - in speeches and on the air - because the accuracy of the ads is irrelevant as far as the Republican presidential ticket is concerned. The goal is not to make a legitimate critique, but to portray Obama as willing to give the "undeserving" poor government handouts at the expense of hardworking taxpayers.
Insofar as Romney can revive anti-welfare sentiments - which have been relatively quiescent since the enactment of the 1996 reforms - he may be able to increase voter motivation among whites whose enthusiasm for Romney has been dimmed by the barrage of Obama ads criticizing Bain Capital for firing workers and outsourcing jobs during Romney's tenure as C.E.O. of the company.
The racial overtones of Romney's welfare ads are relatively explicit. Romney's Medicare ads are a bit more subtle.
"You paid into Medicare for years - every paycheck. Now when you need it, Obama has cut $716 billion from Medicare," the ad begins, with following picture on the screen:
The ad continues:
Why? To pay for Obamacare. The money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that is not for you.
In essence, the ad is telling senior voters that the money they paid to insure their own access to Medicare after they turn 65 is going, instead, to pay for free health care for poor people who are younger than 65.
The Romney Medicare ads have a dual purpose. The first is to deflect the Obama campaign's attack on the Romney-Ryan proposal to radically transform the way medical care for those over 65 is provided. The Associated Press succinctly described the Romney-Ryan proposal:
Starting in 2023, new retirees on the younger side of the line [those younger than 55 in 2012] would get a fixed amount of money from the government to pick either private health insurance or a federal plan modeled on Medicare.
Those going on Medicare after 2022 would have to choose between "premium support" - in other words, a voucher program - to pay for private health care coverage or an option to enroll in a program similar to existing Medicare but without specified funding levels - which means an end to the guaranteed medical coverage currently provided for those over 65.
The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities sums up the likely future of health care for seniors under the Ryan proposal for reform:
The C.B.O. estimates that by 2030 the House Budget Committee plan would increase the out-of-pocket share of health care spending for a typical Medicare beneficiary from the current 25-to-30% range to 68%. By 2050, the House plan would cut federal health care spending by approximately two thirds. Both plans would place substantial administrative burdens on the most vulnerable and infirm of Medicare's enrollees. And both would surrender the considerable leverage that Medicare can bring to bear on providers to reduce spending and improve quality.
Polls in key swing states and nationally show that, at present, voters trust Obama more than Romney to deal with Medicare, and strongly prefer to leave the Medicare program as is.
Asked whether "Medicare should continue as it is today" or "should be changed to a system in which the government would provide seniors with a fixed amount of money toward purchasing private health insurance or Medicare insurance" voters in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin decisively chose to keep Medicare unchanged - by 62-28 in Florida, by 64-27 in Ohio, and by 59-32 in Wisconsin.
When asked whom they trust more to handle the Medicare issue, Florida voters in a Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll, reported on August 23, picked Obama over Romney by a 50-42 margin. In Ohio, Obama's margin was 51-41; in Wisconsin, it was 51-42.
A separate Pew Research Center survey released on August 21 found that 72 percent of voters had heard "a little" or "a lot" about what Pew described as "a proposal to change Medicare into a program that would give future participants a credit toward purchasing private health insurance coverage." Of those familiar with the proposal, a plurality, 49 percent, opposed it, while 34 percent favored it.
The bipartisan Battleground Poll conducted August 5-9 by the Tarrance Group, a Republican firm, and Lake Research Partners, a Democratic firm, found that voters trusted Obama over Romney to handle Medicare and Social Security by a 49-45 margin. The same survey found that voters trusted Congressional Democrats over Congressional Republicans to handle Medicare and Social Security by a 48-40 margin.
Romney's Medicare ad is designed to undermine that relatively modest but potentially crucial advantage. It is artfully constructed to turn the issue of health care into a battle over limited tax dollars between a largely white population of seniors on Medicare and a disproportionately minority population of the currently uninsured who would get health coverage under Obamacare.
Medicare recipients are overwhelmingly white, at 77 percent; 10 percent of recipients are black; and 8 percent Hispanic, with the rest described as coming from other races and ethnicities.
Obamacare, described in the Romney ad as a "massive new government program that is not for you," would provide health coverage to a population of over 30 million that is not currently insured: 16.3 percent of this population is black; 30.7 percent is Hispanic; 5.2 percent is Asian-American; and 46.3 percent (less than half) is made up of non-Hispanic whites.
Politifact described the Medicare ad as "half true":
Romney's claim gives the impression that the law takes money that was already allocated to Medicare and funds the new health care law with it. In fact, the law uses a number of measures to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Those savings are then used to offset costs created by the law - especially coverage for the uninsured - so that the overall law doesn't add to the deficit. We rate his statement Half True.
Politifact also rated a claim Romney made later on the stump - that "there's only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare" - as "mostly false."
The Romney campaign's shift of focus toward welfare and Medicare suggests that his strategists are worried that just disparaging Obama's ability to deal with the struggling economy won't be adequate to produce victory on November 6.
The importance to the Romney-Ryan ticket of two overlapping constituencies - whites without college degrees and white Medicare recipients - cannot be overestimated. Romney, continuing the Republican approach of 2010, is banking on a huge turnout among key white segments of the electorate in order to counter Obama's strengths with minority voters as well as with young and unmarried female voters of all races.
There is extensive poll data showing the depth of Republican dependence on white voters.
On August 23, Pew Research released its latest findings on partisan identification, and the gains that the Republican Party has made among older and non-college whites since 2004 are remarkable.
Just eight years ago, Pew reports, whites 65 and over were evenly split in their allegiance, 46 percent Democratic, 46 percent Republican. In the most recent findings, these voters are now solidly in the Republican camp, 54-38, an eight point Republican gain. Elderly women were 9 points more Democratic than Republican in 2004, 50-41, the opposite of where they are now, 51-42 Republican. Older men, who were 51-41 Republican in 2004, are now 59-33 Republican.
Similarly, white voters without college degrees, of all ages, have gone from 51-40 Republican in 2004, to 54-37 in 2012, according to Pew.
Most importantly, the Pew surveys show that 89% of voters who identify themselves as Republican are white. Faced with few if any possibilities of making gains among blacks and Hispanics - whose support for Obama has remained strong - the Romney campaign has no other choice if the goal is to win but to adopt a strategy to drive up white turnout.
The Romney campaign is willing to disregard criticism concerning accuracy and veracity in favor of "blowing the dog whistle of racism" - resorting to a campaign appealing to racial symbols, images and issues in its bid to break the frustratingly persistent Obama lead in the polls, which has lasted for the past 10 months.
The result is a campaign run at two levels. On the trail, Paul Ryan argues that "we're going to make this about ideas. We're going to make this about a positive vision for the future." On television and the Internet, however, the Romney campaign is clearly determined "to make this about" race, in the tradition of the notorious 1988 Republican Willie Horton ad, which described the rape of a white woman by a convicted African-American murderer released on furlough from a Massachusetts prison during the gubernatorial administration of Michael Dukakis and Jesse Helms's equally infamous "White Hands" commercial, which depicted a white job applicant who "needed that job" but was rejected because "they had to give it to a minority."
The longer campaigns go on, the nastier they get. Once unthinkable methods become conventional.
"You can tell they" - the welfare ads- "are landing punches," Steven Law, president of the Republican super PAC American Crossroads, told the Wall Street Journal. Law's focus group and polling research suggest that the theme is not necessarily going to work. "The economy is so lousy for middle-income Americans that the same people who chafe at the rise of welfare dependency under Obama don't automatically default to a 'get-a-job' attitude - because they know there are no jobs."
As the head of a tax-exempt 501(c)4 independent expenditure committee, Law cannot coordinate campaign strategy directly with the Romney campaign. Nonetheless, he is sending a warning. The welfare theme, Law said, "needs to be done sensitively. Right now it may be more of an economic issue than a values issue: In other words, more people on welfare is another disturbing symptom of Obama's broken-down economy, rather than an indictment of those who are on welfare or the culture as a whole."
Will the Romney campaign heed Law's advice to keep it subtle? The principal media consultant for the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, which will be running many of the anti-Obama ads over the next ten weeks, is Larry McCarthy, who produced the original Willie Horton ad.
Thomas B. Edsall, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, is the author of the book "The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics," which was published earlier this year.
The Welfare Gambit
The Electoral Art of War
Why Moderates Should Like Paul Ryan
Fact-Checking Is Not Enough
Battle of the Placards
LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1148 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 27, 2012 Monday
Romney Says 'Dishonest' Attacks Have Had an Impact
BYLINE: PETER BAKER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 470 words
HIGHLIGHT: In two interviews, Mitt Romney says that while the president's attacks had succeeded in tarnishing his image, he is confident he can overcome that, starting this week.
BOSTON - Mitt Romney said President Obama's attacks on him have been "dishonest" but acknowledged that they had succeeded in tarnishing his image as he heads to a convention intended to reintroduce him to the American people.
In interviews published Monday, Mr. Romney grappled with the challenges awaiting him as Republicans gather in Tampa, Fla., to seal his nomination. After a summer of relentless attacks, Mr. Romney finds himself on the defensive on his taxes, record in business and economic plans. But he expressed confidence that he could overcome that, starting this week.
"I do think that the president's campaign of personal vilification and demonization probably draws some people away from me," Mr. Romney told USA Today. In the end, he said, "people will recognize those attacks for what they are, and they'll make a decision based on who can do a better job creating jobs and providing more take-home pay for the middle class of America. I believe I am that person."
In a separate interview with , Mr. Romney said: "Certainly their ads have some impact or they wouldn't be running them. But there would be an opportunity for people to get to know me better during the debates and during the time in the campaign season when people are actually paying a lot of attention to the candidates."
Mr. Romney's complaints about his opponent's attacks mirror those of Mr. Obama, who has criticized his challenger for what he considers distortions and negativity.
Mr. Romney spent Sunday night at his home in Wolfeboro, N.H., and was spending Monday out of sight to work on his acceptance speech. He plans to fly to Tampa on Thursday, the final day of the convention when he will deliver his address.
The interviews underscored one of the liabilities Mr. Romney faces -- the notion that he is not as likable or as attuned to regular people as Mr. Obama is. Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, agreed that that perception exists but attributed it to the Obama ad campaign and said voters would get a better sense of him this week.
"I was voted the president of my fraternity," he noted. "They don't call them fraternities at Brigham Young University. They're called service clubs. It was the Cougar Club. But you don't get voted to be head of your group if you don't get along with people, if you don't connect with people."
He expressed surprise at the issues Mr. Obama has focused on in attacking him. "There are plenty of weaknesses that I have, and I acknowledge that," Mr. Romney said. "But the attacks that have come have been so misguided, have been so far off target, have been so dishonest, that they surprised me. I thought they might go after me on things that were accurate that I've done wrong, instead of absurd things."
Asked what those accurate weaknesses would be, he laughed and declined to say.
LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1149 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 27, 2012 Monday
A Cynical Portrait of Two Political Bases
BYLINE: DAVID FIRESTONE
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 414 words
HIGHLIGHT: A Romney campaign attack ad accuses the president of gutting the welfare-to-work requirement.
TAMPA, Fla. - The Romney campaign isn't going to admit that its outrageous welfare ad, falsely accusing President Obama of gutting the welfare-to-work requirement, is a nakedly racial appeal to white working-class voters. (Tom Edsall's expert dissection this morning makes that clear.)
The usual procedure in these cases is just to let such an ad do its dirty work and not discuss it. But Mitt Romney went an extra step in an interview with USA Today, saying the ad was accurate and that Mr. Obama's (non-existent) opposition to the work requirement was designed to "shore up his base."
That's a ludicrous charge on several dozen levels. For one thing, if Mr. Obama intended his welfare waiver as a political trumpet blast to his base, he had a very strange way of showing it. The actual waivers - which do nothing more than give states some flexibility in dealing with the work requirement, as long as they move 20 percent more people back to work - were never publicly announced by the administration. They were originally dug out of federal regulations by conservative welfare ideologues who smelled smoke where there was no fire, and were then seized upon by an opportunistic presidential campaign.
In addition, the waivers were actually a response to a request for flexibility by governors, including several Republicans. Not exactly a base that the president needs to shore up.
But who, exactly, does Mr. Romney think the president is trying to appeal to by supposedly handing out welfare checks like Christmas candy, with no strings attached? He apparently thinks Mr. Obama's base is made up largely of welfare recipients longing to be freed of their work requirements, or people who aspire to get on welfare. Apparently, when he thinks of Democrats, he thinks only of poor people, or black people, or Hispanic people, or an undifferentiated mass longing for "free stuff." (That's what he suggested N.A.A.C.P. members wanted a few weeks ago.)
It's a stunningly retrograde view of the Democratic base, one that neglects to mention that the work requirement was signed into law by a president who remains hugely popular among that base, Bill Clinton. But it comes from the same mentality that thinks you can win the presidency by persuading working-class voters that Democrats are still trying to unleash the welfare hordes. Both views are warped and deeply cynical.
Gutting Welfare
March on the R.N.C.
What Will Be Romney's Convention Moment?
For Selfish Seniors Only
Return of the Swift Boat
LOAD-DATE: August 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1150 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 27, 2012 Monday
FINAL EDITION
Romney: Obama is waging a 'vicious' campaign;
Republican calls president's tactics low -- but effective. He talks about lessons learned and the road ahead.
BYLINE: Susan Page
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 1700 words
POWELL, Ohio
Mitt Romney calls campaign attacks by President Obama and his allies "vituperative" and "vicious" and "absurd" and "sad." Also: effective.
"I do think that the president's campaign of personal vilification and demonization probably draws some people away from me," Romney says when asked why he's no better than tied against a vulnerable incumbent.
He hopes the fall campaign, the debates and the storm-delayed Republican National Convention that opens Tuesday in Tampa will provide an effective counter. He doesn't aim to persuade voters to like him more than Obama -- one of the president's big assets -- but rather to trust him more to fix a fragile economy.
"I think in the final analysis, people will recognize those attacks for what they are, and they'll make a decision based on who can do a better job creating jobs and providing more take-home pay for the middle class of America," he says. "I believe I am that person."
After finishing his last rally before the convention, Romney sat down with USA TODAY in the vacant City Council chambers of this leafy Columbus suburb to discuss his convention speech Thursday, the campaign that will follow and the lessons he's learned. Not a man given to displays of emotion or self-analysis, he offers just a moment's reflection on what he's likely to feel on stage that night.
"I think my mom and dad are probably given a little time off to watch," he says with a slip of a smile as he mentions his late parents. His father, three-time Michigan governor George Romney, sought but failed to win the Republican presidential nomination himself more than four decades ago.
For Willard Mitt Romney, it has been a long journey.
The nomination is a prize he has been seeking for at least six years and through two campaigns, and he heads into the election with some enviable advantages. He is the undisputed standard bearer of a Republican cause that claims higher levels of enthusiasm and more money than Democrats. Americans prefer him over Obama when it comes to handling the economy, a pre-convention USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and they say he's more likely to be respected by foreign leaders.
Yet at this moment of triumph, Romney expresses frustration about a campaign that has raised questions about his business practices, his tax returns and his concerns about and connections to the middle class.
Republicans hope this year's campaign emulates 1980, when challenger Ronald Reagan in a late surge won over unhappy voters and ousted a vulnerable President Jimmy Carter. Democrats are more likely to see the 2004 election as the model, when a weakened President George W. Bush succeeded in painting challenger John Kerry as an unacceptable alternative.
"There are plenty of weaknesses that I have, and I acknowledge that," Romney says. "But the attacks that have come have been so misguided, have been so far off target, have been so dishonest, that they surprised me. I thought they might go after me on things that were accurate that I've done wrong, instead of absurd things."
He ticks off the examples he has in mind. "The Harry Reid attack, 'Oh, he hasn't paid taxes in 10 years.' Ridiculous," he says of an allegation that the Democratic Senate majority leader attributed to an unnamed friend. "The attack about how Romney's responsible for this woman who died and the vice president's comments about 'chains.' Really? The White House just keeps stepping lower and lower and lower, and the people of America know this is an important election and they deserve better than they've seen."
An ad by Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC, tied Romney to a woman's death from cancer after her husband lost his job and his health insurance at a steel mill Bain Capital shuttered, a suggestion the independent group FactCheck.org called misleading. Vice President Biden, discussing GOP efforts to loosen bank regulations, warned a mixed-race audience in Virginia this month that "they're going to put y'all back in chains."
Of course, Romney and his allies have unleashed their own tough attacks on Obama.
"Gov. Romney has spent a lot of time trying to link an ad that we didn't produce to our campaign at the same time he has spent millions airing a discredited welfare reform ad," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt says when asked to respond to Romney's comments. He says the ad, which accuses Obama of moving to gut work requirements in the welfare law, attacks a more stringent policy than Romney pushed in Massachusetts.
Romney defends the welfare ads as accurate, accusing Obama of offering state waivers as a political calculation designed to "shore up his base" for the election. He denies he was trying to stoke discredited questions about Obama's birthplace when he said at a Detroit rally Friday that no one had ever asked him for his Michigan birth certificate.
"I understand some people don't think we should ever joke," Romney says, saying he was just being "human" and "spontaneous." He argues that his attacks have been based on policy while Obama has attacked him on more personal fronts. The president's team has tried "to minimize me as an individual, to make me a bad person, an unacceptable person," he says.
"Isn't it sad? Isn't it sad that the focus of the president's campaign, having been president for four years, is to try and attack the personality of the person he's running against as opposed to standing up for his record and his plan for the future? But because his record is so weak and because his plan forward is a continuation of what he's done in the past, the only thing he can do is attack me."
By the way, what were those legitimate vulnerabilities on which he had expected attacks?
"Not going to tell you," he says, chuckling. "Sorry."
Cue the marching band
With 10 weeks to go, there is no shortage of advice on what Romney needs to do now.
When the entrance opened at 6:30 a.m. Saturday to get on the Powell Village Green, supporters already were lining up for the chance to see Romney and his running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, speak at a midmorning rally. The Olentangy Liberty High School marching band, resplendent in bright blue uniforms, played for a good-natured crowd the campaign estimated at more than 5,000.
A handful of protesters, boosted by a bullhorn, could be heard chanting from the street, and a small plane hired by MoveOn.org circled overhead, trailing a misspelled protest banner: "America is better then (sic) birtherism."
John Williamson, 61, can't wait for the next phase of the campaign.
"This mudslinging has got to stop," he says, saying both sides have been negative but blaming Obama for the worst of it. "After the conventions, hopefully they'll talk more about what they have for solutions," especially for the economy.
He's certain Romney will win in November, but his friend Lou Lombardo, 57, a real estate appraiser, isn't so sure. He worries that Obama's appeal to female voters and what he calls "class warfare" could work. "When I'm at an event like this, I'm confident," Lombardo says, "but when I look at the whole picture, I'm not."
Nearby, Don Hild, 75, a retired engineer and manufacturing representative, sees the election as a tossup, and one that has divided his wife from her two grown children, both Obama supporters. "We have friends we can't even talk to about politics," says Melissa Hild, 71, a retired dental hygienist. "They can't understand how we feel, and we can't understand how they feel."
If Romney wins, she worries that the tone of the campaign and the polarization of the nation's politics will make it hard for him to govern. "He's got the smarts and he's got the business background," she says. "But once you get to Washington, nobody will cooperate."
Emmi Banner, 18, a freshman at Ohio State University and a first-time voter, says Obama has won the allegiance of many of her peers by "making promises he can't keep" and focusing on social issues. "Somehow the Republican Party needs to get the message out about the economy and explain it in simple terms," she says.
Kathy Smith, 59, a speech therapist from Springfield, Ohio, is sold on Romney but worries he won't be able to get to the Oval Office if he doesn't seize the opportunity at the convention to forge a personal connection with voters.
"I think people don't understand about Romney," she says. "I don't think they understand about him as a person. We see the shiny, polished person who comes out on a stage. We want to see how he is -- with his family, down in New Hampshire, maybe. Show us how he interacts with his wife, his sons and his grandkids. That's what we're not seeing enough of."
'A very dramatic choice'
Romney doesn't see it that way. He rejects the idea that he needs to come across as more likable -- a characteristic on which Obama bested him by 23 percentage points in the USA TODAY poll. He has a lot of friends who like him just fine, he says, and the people who come to his rallies "are enthusiastic and supportive."
Impressions of him among voters may warm up through the debates and the fall campaign, he says, and his wife of 43 years, Ann Romney, will talk about a more personal side when she addresses the convention Tuesday. He's still working on his own speech, he says in the interview.
The night before, he had been reading through the acceptance address Obama delivered in Denver four years ago.
During the daytime program, he says, there will be "a series of vignettes, so people who attend the convention will get to know me a little better," but outside the Tampa Bay Times Forum, only a devoted C-SPAN viewer will see them. During prime time in the evening, when the broadcast networks are carrying the proceedings and millions of Americans tune in, "we won't be talking about my life," he says. "We'll be talking about policy."
Ever the business analyst, Romney says it's more important to make a convincing argument than to put forward a charismatic persona, and that's what he aims to do. "By and large, this is a campaign about big ideas and a very dramatic choice that America is about to make," he says.
How will the next 10 weeks be different from what's gone before?
"It will be more intense," he says, "and I will make no mistakes." Then he laughs.
LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, Color, Julie Snider, USA TODAY (Bar graph)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: COVER STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1151 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 27, 2012 Monday 10:17 PM EST
Obama, Romney close in North Carolina and Florida, new polls show;
A new survey shows very close races in the two states hosting presidential nominating conventions.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 484 words
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
The Fixs Convention Hangout: Live with Rep. Connie Mack
Rob Portman will play Obama in Romneys debate sessions
The 10 numbers that matter in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll
Bobby Jindals delayed debut
The Fixs Senate race ratings map is here!
A brief history of convention crossover speeches
GOP poll: Two-fifths of Americans say Obama is very liberal
Mitt Romneys rich guy problem
People want smaller government and they think Mitt Romney does too
2012: Its the economy, stupid (part 247)
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* New CNN/Time Magazine/ORC pollsshow President Obama leads Mitt Romney 50 percent to 46 percent in Florida. In North Carolina, Romney leads Obama 48 percent to 47 percent. Both leads are inside the margin of error.
* With Tropical Storm Issacapproachingthe Gulf Coast, senior GOP convention officials said they were considering worst case scenarios,including a quick nominating vote and an abbreviated Romney speech in a smaller venue.
* At a hometown campaign appearance that also served as a preview for his convention address, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) discussed his family'sjourneyto the U.S. from Ireland and underscored the importance ofcommunity over government.
* Some Missouri delegates to the Republican National Convention are not happy with the efforts by Romney and national Republicans to pressure Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) to end his Senate campaign. Karl Rove, on the other hand, said that if Akin "really cares are about the values of conservatism and pro-life, he will not go down for defeat as the biggest loss by a Republican candidate for Senate in modern history."
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* In an appearance at the Pennsylvania Press Club, Republican Senate nominee Tom Smith appeared to compare having a child out of wedlock to rape. When asked follow up questions about his apparent statement, Smith said he was not saying the two aresimilar.
*Democrat Elizabeth WarrenoutraisedSen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) during the past six weeks, $3.7 million to $2.3 million. Brown has $14.2 million in the bank to Warren's $12.3 million.
* Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) has released a TV ad criticizing his Senate opponent, former Republican congresswoman Heather Wilson. "After tenyears in Congress,shes lost touch withNew Mexico families.Wilson voted for taxbreaks for Wall Streetbanks," the ad says. It's an interesting line of attack, since Heinrich himself is a member of Congress.
* A Pew Research Center survey shows that more Americans (52 percent) are interested inlearningabout the Republican Partyplatformthan they are about the convention speeches of Romney (44 percent) and Ryan (46 percent).
THE FIX MIX:
That was fast.
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1152 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 27, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
Upset in Michigan?
BYLINE: Marc A. Thiessen
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 784 words
Lansing, Mich.
It is no surprise that in the run-up to this week's Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made their first joint campaign appearance in the key battleground state of Ohio. More interesting is that Romney and Ryan took their pre-convention tour to a Midwestern state that went for Barack Obama by double digits in 2008: Michigan.
No GOP presidential candidate has carried Michigan in almost a quarter-century, and four years ago Obama won here in a 16-point landslide. This November, however, Romney sees Michigan as ripe for a pickup. Most polls show Obama leading here narrowly, but Romney strategists point out that their man is nearly tied with the president before the TV ad war between the campaigns has even begun. Michigan is one of 11 states where the Romney campaign is fully staffed with a battleground footprint and money flowing in.
So can Romney pull an upset here? While he emphasized his Michigan roots this weekend with an ill-considered birther joke, his favorite-son status gets him only so far. After all, most Michigan voters have only distant memories of his father's tenure as governor in the 1960s, and Romney barely squeaked out a three-point primary win over Rick Santorum in his home state. But a number of factors suggest that Romney has a shot in Michigan. For one thing, since Obama's 2008 victory, Michigan voters put the House in GOP hands and have elected a Republican governor, Rick Snyder, who campaigned (like Romney) on his experience in the private sector. Since taking office, Snyder has erased a $1.5 billion budget deficit and cut corporate taxes by $1 billion a year - and Michigan's unemployment rate dropped from over 13 percent in 2010 to 8.6 percent in June. If Michigan voters are comfortable enough to put a chief executive in charge in Lansing, it stands to reason they would also put a chief executive in charge in Washington.
Despite the recent progress, Michigan is not yet out of the woods economically. The state is still in its 48th straight month of above-8-percent unemployment and has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation. The election will turn on jobs and the economy - and those are the issues Romney and Ryan emphasized at a rally in Commerce this weekend.
But the Romney campaign has also been highlighting two other issues that have particular resonance in Michigan. One is the administration's contraception and abortifacient mandate, which hurts the president with the socially conservative Reagan Democrats in such places as Macomb County. There are 2.4 million Catholic voters in Michigan, and Obama's assault on religious liberty has alienated many of them. In May, the Michigan Catholic Conference filed suit against the Obama administration over the Health and Human Services mandate - and Catholic priests will be preaching against it in parishes across the state between now and Election Day. Look for Romney to underscore his opposition to the HHS mandate - and his endorsement by Lech Walesa - with these Catholic voters, many of whom are of Polish and Ukrainian descent. The second issue is welfare reform. Welfare fraud is fresh on people's minds here, thanks to the news of a Detroit area woman who was recently caught continuing to collect benefits despite winning a $1 million state lottery prize. Michiganders have a strong work ethic and remain justly proud of their state's role as a pioneer of welfare reform in the 1990s. The charge that Obama is gutting welfare reform hits a nerve here.
For these and other reasons, some Michigan Democrats are increasingly worried that Obama may be taking victory here for granted. Local Democratic pollster Bernie Porn recently told the political newsletter MIRS that the Obama campaign seems to be "of the opinion that the bailout and loans he approved for the auto industry is such a powerful message that's going to win the day for him. But I think he could be waiting too long." Romney knows he must win key battleground states, like Ohio, and take back states such as Virginia and North Carolina, which George W. Bush carried but John McCain lost in 2008. But he is also making a serious play for a few additional states no Republican has carried in the past five elections. His selection of Ryan as his running mate has put one of those states - Wisconsin - in play. And while a GOP victory in Michigan is still a long shot, Romney is betting he can also become the first Republican to win the state since 1988 - and with it the White House.
Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, writes a weekly online column for The Post.
LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1153 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 27, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 426 words
QUOTE OF THE WEEK "No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate - they know that this was the place we were born and raised."
Mitt Romney,making what appeared to be a joke about President Obama's birth certificate at an event in Michigan. Democrats immediately accused Romney of associating himself with the "birther" crowd - people who continue to question whether the president was born in the United States.
BY THE NUMBERS
29The number of remaining days embattled Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) has to drop his Senate bid and allow Republicans to choose a replacement nominee. Akin, who stoked controversy when he told a local TV station that "legitimate rape" rarely causes pregnancy, has repeatedly stated his intention to continue his campaign. If he does not exit the race by Sept. 25, his name will appear on the ballot.
1The number of former presidents who will be attending the Democratic and Republican conventions this week and next. Bill Clinton - who appeared in an ad for President Obama last week - will be in Charlotte. But neither George W. Bush nor his father, George H.W. Bush, will be in Tampa. Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, won't be at the Democratic convention.
2The number of House Republicans on the ballot in Arizona's 6th District primary election Tuesday. For months, Reps. Benjamin Quayle and David Schweikert, both freshmen, have been running against one another in a heated campaign. Already, 12 House incumbents have lost in primaries this cycle. That number is guaranteed to go up this week.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO DEMOCRATS
Todd Akin. The GOP Senate candidate's comment about "legitimate rape" rarely causing pregnancy gave Republicans a case of deja vu. Just two years ago, a trio of tea-party-aligned Republican Senate nominees harmed the party's chances of winning in three states. It's happening again, thanks to Akin. And despite a large-scale GOP effort to get Akin to drop out of the race, he wasn't budging.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO REPUBLICANS
The swing-state polls began to close. Polls in several of the most important states on the map showed Mitt Romney gaining on or overtaking President Obama. Romney asserted his first lead in months in Wisconsin, Colorado and Virginia and crept closer in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. The shift was slight, but it's still good news for Republicans, who had seen their nominee lag behind Obama in swing-state polling.
- Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan
LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1154 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 27, 2012 Monday 5:47 PM EST
Mitt Romney's 'rich guy' problem;
People think Mitt Romney is a rich guy looking out for his rich friends. He's got to find a way to change that.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
LENGTH: 539 words
TAMPA - Of all the tasks that Mitt Romney must accomplishat this week's Republican National Convention, the toughest (and most important) is this: Convince voters - particularly independents and undecideds - that he is more than just a rich guy.
New numbers from a Washington Post-ABC News poll paint Romney's challenge in stark terms. Six in ten registered voters said that Romney's policies in office would favor the wealthy while 30 percent said he would look more favorably on the middle class. (Six in ten voters said Obama's policies would favor the middle class.)
Inside the data, the numbers are equally troubling for the Republican presidential nominee. Sixty percent of independents believe he would favor the wealthy in office. Two thirds of Midwestern voters - a critical general election battle ground - think Romney's policies would favor the wealthy. In the states rated as toss up by the Washington Post, 59 percent said Romney's policies would favor the wealthy. Even a majority of voters 65 years old (and older), a group that trends Republican and are among the most reliable voters, believe Romney will look out for the rich over the middle class.
What the numbers make clear is that the Democratic assault on Romney - through tens of millions in ads in swing states as well as a relentless message focus from the campaign - is working.
Here's the best example of what Obama is trying to do - an ad that casts Romney as part of the problem not the solution set to "America the Beautiful".
How Romney solves his "rich guy" problem - or at least mitigates it - isn't immediately obvious. He is someone whose success in business (monetarily and otherwise) has come to define his life. It is impossible to tell the story of Mitt Romney without going through his years at Bain where he made massive sums of money, wealth that fueled his later political career. (Don't forget that Romney spent $44 million of his own money on a run for president in 2008.)
What Romney and the convention planners will likely do is try to place his wealth in a broader context of his life story: someone who did achieve affluence but rather than luxuriate in it went on to help save the Salt Lake City Olympics, serve as governor of Massachusetts and then pursue the presidency.
Viewed in that context, Romney will likely try to cast himself who has dedicated the second part of his life to public service for no other reason than he felt called to do so. That sort of noble sacrifice narrative is much more sellable than the story Democrats have - successfully - told about Romney to date: That of a rich guy just looking for another award to pin on his lapel.
Turning that narrative in a more positive direction is the single most critical piece of the convention puzzle for Romney. While the public's dismal view of the economy virtually ensures that he will remain in a dead heat with the President through November, Romney has to find a way to convince voters that there's more to him than just the money he has made in his life.
That work begins when the Republican National Convention formally convenes Tuesday night.
Read more from PostPolitics
Race is neck-and-neck as parties convene
Five speakers to watch in Tampa
Charlie Crist endorses Obama
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1155 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 27, 2012 Monday 3:46 PM EST
2012: It's the economy, stupid (part 247);
President Obama may be winning the 2012 battle and losing the 2012 war.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 808 words
TAMPA - Despite a series of struggles of late - ranging from a less-than-stellar foreign trip to controversy over his vice presidential pick - former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has pulled into a dead heat with President Obama in thelatest Washington Post-ABC News poll.
And the reason, according to the guts of the poll, is simple: the economy stinks and people don't think the current occupant of the White House can make it better.
To wit:
* 56 percent of registered voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing on the economy while just 43 percent approve.
* Nearly six in ten voters (58%) say they are "not confident" that the economy will improve if Obama is elected to a second term. Fifty-two percent of the sample express a lack of confidence in Romney's ability to get things back on the right economic track.
* Fifty percent say they trust Romney more to handle the economy while 43 percent name Obama.
Numbers like those make clear just how difficult the challenge for Obama to win in this political environment really is. Even as Obama has seemed to win the tactical, day-in-day-out fight of the last few months, the race has moved - albeit it marginally - in Romney's direction nationally.
What the Post-ABC numbers make crystal clear is that the still struggling economy amounts to a huge political weight around President Obama's ankles. No matter how much Romney seems to struggle with the blocking and tackling of the campaign, the currents of the electorate continue to keep him close (or even ahead).
The numbers also suggest that this may well be an election where what happens in the campaign plays a decidedly minor role while the broad backdrop on which the race is fought is close to determinative. Put more simply: Obama could win the day-to-day part of the race and still lose on November 6.
GOP gets bump in Ohio: A new Columbus Dispatch Poll in Ohio shows both the presidential race and Senate race are essentially tied.
Romney tops Obama by less than one-quarter of 1 percent (each rounds to 45 percent), while Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) leads state Treasurer Josh Mandel (R) by just less than 1 percent (each rounds to 44 percent).
Both results are significantly better for Republicans than most recent polling has shown - particularly the Senate race, which has sometimes polled a double-digit lead for Brown.
A Quinnipiac University poll last week showed Obama up six points and Brown up seven.
Fixbits:
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says the conventionwill proceed as scheduled on Tuesdayafter Monday's events were canceled.
A new national survey from GOP pollster the Tarrance Group shows Obama leading Romney 47 percent to 46 percent.
Romney again hails the mandate portion of his Massachusetts health care bill - which suggests that his campaign's move to start talking about the billa few weeks back wasn't a fluke. Romney sought to differentiatehis bill from Obama's by noting that it didn't cut Medicare or raise taxes.
Ron Paul explains why he turned down a deal to speak at the GOP convention - because the Romney campaign wanted to vet his remarks and get a full-fledged endorsement of Romney.It wouldnt be my speech, Paul told the New York Times. That would undo everything Ive done in the last 30 years. I dont fully endorse him for president.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) accuses Republicans of using "coded messages."
Romney says his overseas accounts didn't help him avoid taxes.
Ex-Republican former Florida governor Charlie Crist endorses Obama.
Anew Mason-Dixon poll of the Missouri Senate raceshows half of Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Mo.) supporters want him to drop his campaign. His favorability rating is an astounding 17 percent positive and 56 percent negative, and he trails Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) by nine points.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is launching attack calls against 20 House Republicans tying them to Akin and his comments about "legitimate rape."
A new ad from Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren plays up women's issues.
A new ad from Rep. Mazie Hirono's (D-Hawaii) Senate campaign hits GOP opponent and former governor Linda Lingle (R) for "misleading negative ads."
Must-reads:
"The political evolution of Mitt Romney" - Michael Kranish, Boston Globe
"Romney Adopts Harder Message for Last Stretch" - Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
"Ron Pauls fans throw a party without guest of honor" - Jason Horowitz, Washington Post
"Joementum: Biden prepares for 2016" - Noam Schreiber, The New Republic
"A conversation with Jeb Bush, Florida's most respected Republican" - Adam C. Smith, Tampa Bay Times
"Despite Democrats Warnings, Private Medicare Plans Find Success" - Robert Pear, New York Times
"A Party of Factions Gathers, Seeking Consensus" - Adam Nagourney, New York Times
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1156 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 27, 2012 Monday 2:06 PM EST
Paul Ryan added to the Pinocchio tracker;
Mitt Romney's running mate has already been vetted seven times--and he starts out with a 1.86 Pinocchio average.
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 610 words
We're sorry to have missed Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate - and the ensuing battle over Medicare - but we will try to make it up in the coming days with more detailed looks at the charges and countercharges about the old-age health-insurance program. Our standard rule applies: The more detailed and complex an issue is, the more susceptible it is to truth-twisting by politicians. Readers may recall that more than a year ago we offered this advice: "Mute the sound whenever a Medicare ad by either party comes on television."
In the meantime, we have added Ryan to our "Pinocchio Tracker," which provides an average rating of all columns on his statements as well as links to every column written about a presidential or vice presidential candidate.
Statements by Ryan-the chairman of the House Budget Committee-- have already been vetted seven times in past year and a half, and he starts out with a 1.86 average rating. This is largely because he once earned a rare "Geppetto" for a correct statement, which mitigated the effect of his other incorrect statements. (More on that below.) He's also earned as high as Three Pinocchios for his claims.
Here is a guide to the previous columns on Ryan, in the order in which they appeared.
Ryan earned Two Pinocchios for claiming Obama's 2012 budget had a ratio of spending increases to tax cuts of eight to one. We concluded he made this claim through some highly suspect accounting.
Ryan also earned Two Pinocchios for claiming the House GOP budget did not rely on any accounting tricks, but we found he had done little better than the White House: "As with President Obama's budget, the Ryan budget plan relies on dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures."
This column looked in detail at the House GOP plan for Medicare, including Ryan's claim that Republicans wanted to give Medicare recipients the same system that members of Congress have. Ryan earned Two Pinocchios for a claim that we determined gave "a false and misleading impression to ordinary people."
Ryan asserted that under President Obama's tax plan, the marginal tax rate would rise to nearly 45 percent for some wealthy Americans. The marginal tax rate is the percentage of taxes that are paid on each additional dollar that is earned, and Ryan's eyepopping figure was higher than the amount usually cited by the White House. But it turned out he was right, and so he earned a prized Geppetto.
During the debate over extending the debt limit, Ryan harkened back to the 1997 budget deal between President Clinton and congressional Republicans as a model for cooperation. But we awarded him One Pinocchio for getting his history wrong.
After Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. government debt from its pristine AAA rating, Ryan asserted the House budget would have prevented "this downgrade from happening in the first place." But we found that S&P did not say that, and in fact had said "it was the failure of Republicans and Democrats to demonstrate they could work together that led directly to the downgrade." Ryan earned Three Pinocchios for his comments.
Ryan earned Three Pinocchios for claiming that there are 219 regulations being released by the Obama administration, at a cost of more than $100 million. We had already demonstrated there were serious problems with that figure, and urged Ryan to update his talking points.
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1157 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 27, 2012 Monday
Suburban Edition
Upset in Michigan?
BYLINE: Marc A. Thiessen
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 770 words
DATELINE: LANSING, MICH.
Lansing, Mich.
It is no surprise that in the run-up to this week's Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made their first joint campaign appearance in the key battleground state of Ohio. More interesting is that Romney and Ryan took their pre-convention tour to a Midwestern state that went for Barack Obama by double digits in 2008: Michigan.
No GOP presidential candidate has carried Michigan in almost a quarter-century, and four years ago Obama won here in a 16-point landslide. This November, however, Romney sees Michigan as ripe for a pickup.
Most polls show Obama leading here narrowly, but Romney strategists point out that their man is nearly tied with the president before the TV ad war between the campaigns has even begun. Michigan is one of 11 states where the Romney campaign is fully staffed with a battleground footprint and money flowing in.
So can Romney pull an upset here? While he emphasized his Michigan roots this weekend with an ill-considered birther joke, his favorite-son status gets him only so far. After all, most Michigan voters have only distant memories of his father's tenure as governor in the 1960s, and Romney barely squeaked out a three-point primary win over Rick Santorum in his home state.
But a number of factors suggest that Romney has a shot in Michigan. For one thing, since Obama's 2008 victory, Michigan voters put the House in GOP hands and have elected a Republican governor, Rick Snyder, who campaigned (like Romney) on his experience in the private sector. Since taking office, Snyder has erased a $1.5 billion budget deficit and cut corporate taxes by $1 billion a year - and Michigan's unemployment rate dropped from over 13 percent in 2010 to 8.6 percent in June. If Michigan voters are comfortable enough to put a chief executive in charge in Lansing, it stands to reason they would also put a chief executive in charge in Washington.
Despite the recent progress, Michigan is not yet out of the woods economically. The state is still in its 48th straight month of above-8-percent unemployment and has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation. The election will turn on jobs and the economy - and those are the issues Romney and Ryan emphasized at a rally in Commerce this weekend.
But the Romney campaign has also been highlighting two other issues that have particular resonance in Michigan. One is the administration's contraception and abortifacient mandate, which hurts the president with the socially conservative Reagan Democrats in such places as Macomb County. There are 2.4 million Catholic voters in Michigan, and Obama's assault on religious liberty has alienated many of them. In May, the Michigan Catholic Conference filed suit against the Obama administration over the Health and Human Services mandate - and Catholic priests will be preaching against it in parishes across the state between now and Election Day. Look for Romney to underscore his opposition to the HHS mandate - and his endorsement by Lech Walesa - with these Catholic voters, many of whom are of Polish and Ukrainian descent.
The second issue is welfare reform. Welfare fraud is fresh on people's minds here, thanks to the news of a Detroit area woman who was recently caught continuing to collect benefits despite winning a $1 million state lottery prize. Michiganders have a strong work ethic and remain justly proud of their state's role as a pioneer of welfare reform in the 1990s. The charge that Obama is gutting welfare reform hits a nerve here.
For these and other reasons, some Michigan Democrats are increasingly worried that Obama may be taking victory here for granted. Local Democratic pollster Bernie Porn recently told the political newsletter MIRS that the Obama campaign seems to be "of the opinion that the bailout and loans he approved for the auto industry is such a powerful message that's going to win the day for him. But I think he could be waiting too long."
Romney knows he must win key battleground states, like Ohio, and take back states such as Virginia and North Carolina, which George W. Bush carried but John McCain lost in 2008. But he is also making a serious play for a few additional states no Republican has carried in the past five elections. His selection of Ryan as his running mate has put one of those states - Wisconsin - in play. And while a GOP victory in Michigan is still a long shot, Romney is betting he can also become the first Republican to win the state since 1988 - and with it the White House.
Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, writes a weekly online column for The Post.
LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1158 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 27, 2012 Monday
Suburban Edition
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 405 words
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate - they know that this was the place we were born and raised."
Mitt Romney, making what appeared to be a joke about President Obama's birth certificate at an event in Michigan. Democrats immediately accused Romney of associating himself with the "birther" crowd - people who continue to question whether the president was born in the United States.
BY THE NUMBERS
29The number of remaining days embattled Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) has to drop his Senate bid and allow Republicans to choose a replacement nominee. Akin, who stoked controversy when he told a local TV station that "legitimate rape" rarely causes pregnancy, has repeatedly stated his intention to continue his campaign. If he does not exit the race by Sept. 25, his name will appear on the ballot.
1The number of former presidents who will be attending the Democratic and Republican conventions this week and next. Bill Clinton - who appeared in an ad for President Obama last week - will be in Charlotte. But neither George W. Bush nor his father, George H.W. Bush, will be in Tampa. Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, won't be at the Democratic convention.
2The number of House Republicans on the ballot in Arizona's 6th District primary election Tuesday. For months, Reps. Benjamin Quayle and David Schweikert, both freshmen, have been running against one another in a heated campaign. Already, 12 House incumbents have lost in primaries this cycle. That number is guaranteed to go up this week.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO DEMOCRATS
Todd Akin. The GOP Senate candidate's comment about "legitimate rape" rarely causing pregnancy gave Republicans a case of deja vu. Just two years ago, a trio of tea-party-aligned Republican Senate nominees harmed the party's chances of winning in three states. It's happening again, thanks to Akin. And despite a large-scale GOP effort to get Akin to drop out of the race, he wasn't budging.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO REPUBLICANS
The swing-state polls began to close. Polls in several of the most important states on the map showed Mitt Romney gaining on or overtaking President Obama. Romney asserted his first lead in months in Wisconsin, Colorado and Virginia and crept closer in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. The shift was slight, but it's still good news for Republicans, who had seen their nominee lag behind Obama in swing-state polling.
- Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan
LOAD-DATE: August 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1159 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 26, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
For Big Givers, Cash and Clout Arrive Together
BYLINE: By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1241 words
The railway giant CSX, which has spent $2 million this year lobbying on issues like greenhouse-gas regulation and hazardous-waste transportation rules, will park special train cars near the Tampa Bay Times Forum to host parties and meetings.
Reflecting the new power and prominence of ''super PACs'' and other groups in the Republican world, Americans for Prosperity, a tax-exempt organization that is spending millions of dollars against President Obama, will hold a reception, ''A Salute to Entrepreneurs Building America.'' The honorees are David H. Koch, the group's billionaire co-founder, and Art Pope, a North Carolina businessman and generous donor to conservative causes.
The billionaire investor Paul Singer, who has given at least $1 million to the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future, has booked Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice for invitation-only briefings, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin for a private dinner, and himself for a breakfast seminar titled ''A Pro-Growth Agenda for a Romney Administration.''
When thousands of delegates, elected officials and party leaders begin arriving in Tampa, Fla., for the Republican National Convention, hundreds of lobbyists, corporate executives, trade associations and donors will be waiting for them, exploiting legal loopholes -- and the fun-house atmosphere -- that make each party's quadrennial conventions a gathering of money and influence unrivaled in politics.
In many ways, their activities amount to a parallel convention, one in which access to elected officials, party leaders and delegates provides corporations, interest groups and lobbyists a chance to advance their causes as the party goes about its official business nearby.
Lobbyists and trade groups, virtually all with business before Congress and federal agencies, are paying for a nonstop schedule of beach parties, concerts and cocktail hours.
The American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, will present a concert and panels to promote its ''Vote 4 Energy'' campaign, including the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, opposition to new transparency rules for American energy companies operating abroad and the expansion of oil production on federal land.
''For some groups, the conventions might be a one-off function where they go have some meetings,'' said Jack N. Gerard, the American Petroleum Institute's president. ''For us, it complements a broader effort that we've been engaging in this year. It's one more opportunity to engage the people who tend to have disproportionate weight in conversations about policy.''
The Republican lobbying firm Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, whose clients include the American Forest and Paper Association, Apple and JPMorgan Chase, will entertain top Congressional campaign strategists at the Tampa Museum of Art.
The money-access-power matrix is that much more visible this year with the rise of the super PACs and politically active tax-exempt groups. Such organizations now rival the formal party apparatus in money and influence, and allow wealthy individuals and corporations to donate unlimited money to political causes, sometimes without having to disclose their identities.
The outside groups raising funds to beat Mr. Obama cannot coordinate their spending with Mr. Romney, but the gossamer-thin federal rules allow them to piggyback on major Romney donor conferences and fund-raisers by sending representatives to mingle with big givers or plan their own events nearby. That will continue in Tampa: American Crossroads, co-founded by Mr. Rove, will host a donor briefing with former Gov. Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio, both of Florida. Restore Our Future, founded by former Romney aides, will hold a briefing for prospective donors this week.
What happens day to day in Washington -- fund-raising, lobbying, dining and entertainment -- expands to a gigantic scale around the conventions.
''The delegates are like bored teens counting down the minutes until spring break,'' said Gabriela Schneider of the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group that is sending staff members to Tampa and to the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., to track party attendance. ''Lobbyists and big-money sponsors cut through the hype that conventions are about anything else and capitalize on it by throwing hundreds of invite-only events.''
There is a luncheon cruise for Colorado delegates paid for by Federal Express and CH2M Hill, a federal and municipal construction contractor. A cigar tent courtesy of the American Action Network, which will spend millions defending the House Republican majority this year, will shelter smokers at a ''Liberty Pavilion.'' The Financial Services Roundtable, Wall Street's leading trade group, will host an invitation-only luncheon for finance executives, members of Congress and regulators, followed by a public forum on how federal policy affects its members' retirement and annuity products.
''The conventions are obviously the heart of politics,'' said Scott Talbott, the round table's senior vice president for government affairs. ''And this is an opportunity to celebrate the political process between members of Congress and the industry.''
Both parties are receiving $18 million in taxpayer funds, money controlled by party officials to put on each convention's official speeches and nominations. But far more private money flows into each party's ''host committee,'' a tax-exempt nonprofit organization that, under a loophole created in the 1980s, can accept unlimited individual, corporate and union contributions and does not have to disclose its finances until October.
Lobbyists and trade groups will descend in large numbers on the Democratic convention in Charlotte next week. But in a bid to limit the conventions' growing dependence on corporate financing, Democrats this year banned their host committee from accepting direct contributions from businesses and lobbyists. No self-imposed limits apply to the Republican host committee, which has a $55 million budget and is sponsored by corporations like Target, Chevron and Microsoft.
''We decided to follow the law -- period,'' said Ken Jones, chief executive of the Tampa host committee. Mr. Jones, a former election lawyer at Patton Boggs, a leading Washington law firm and lobbying shop, said the sponsors viewed the convention not as a chance to buttonhole lawmakers and decision makers, but as a way to advertise their brands.
In Tampa, Volkswagen is providing Republican officials with a small fleet of Passats ''to gain further exposure,'' a company spokesman said. Chesapeake Energy, which has lobbied state and local officials to block proposed restrictions on natural gas extraction, has provided sport utility vehicles that use natural gas.
The conventions are also fertile ground for lobbyists.
Williams & Jensen, a government affairs firm, is hosting events in Tampa all week, from a ''kickoff'' party at Bern's Steak House to a bay side cocktail party and a luncheon for the Virginia delegates. Attendance for elected officials is free. The price for corporate sponsors: $15,000 for an all-access pass.
One prominent Republican fund-raiser, Brendan Winfrey, has reserved a private yacht for his clients, including Senators Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Jerry Moran of Kansas, according to invitations obtained by the Sunlight Foundation. Companies that donate $10,000 to the candidates' leadership PACs, the maximum allowed, receive the honorary title of ''captain.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/us/politics/for-big-givers-sideshow-tops-the-party-tent.html
LOAD-DATE: August 26, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1160 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 26, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Romney Adopts Harder Message For Last Stretch
BYLINE: By JEFF ZELENY and JIM RUTENBERG
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1644 words
TAMPA, Fla. -- Mitt Romney is heading into his nominating convention with his advisers convinced he needs a more combative footing against President Obama in order to appeal to white, working-class voters and to persuade them that he is the best answer to their economic frustrations.
Having survived a summer of attacks but still trailing the president narrowly in most national polls, Mr. Romney's campaign remains focused intently on the economy as the issue that can defeat Mr. Obama. But in a marked change, Mr. Romney has added a harder edge to a message that for most of this year was focused on his business and job-creation credentials, injecting volatile cultural themes into the race.
Some elements of that revised strategy will be evident at the Republican convention, which was set to open here on Monday but will be delayed until Tuesday because of safety concerns from Tropical Storm Isaac. The Romney campaign was hastily rearranging the schedule, but officials said the convention would still amplify the conservative arguments against the president with speakers like Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.
''We will absolutely be able to get our message out,'' said Russ Schriefer, a senior campaign adviser. ''We still have an opportunity to tell the story of the last four years of how President Obama has failed the country.''
The strategic shift in the campaign message that has been unfolding in recent weeks reflects a conclusion among Mr. Romney's advisers that disappointment with Mr. Obama's economic stewardship is not sufficient to propel Mr. Romney to victory on its own.
Republican strategists said that many middle-class voters had proved reluctant to give up entirely on Mr. Obama, and that they still needed to be convinced that Mr. Romney would look out for their interests.
Steven J. Law, the president of the conservative group American Crossroads, said some swing voters in focus groups had helped explain why support for Mr. Obama had not collapsed despite his poor marks on the economy.
''They're somewhat seduced by the thought, 'If the guy had more time, maybe he'd be able to turn it around,' '' said Mr. Law, whose group is spending tens of millions of dollars to change that.
Republicans are nervously monitoring the pivotal battleground of Ohio, where Mr. Romney has had trouble making headway against Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney visited the state on Saturday and previewed the themes of his convention by offering faint praise of his rival, saying: ''He says marvelous things. He just hasn't done them.''
Mr. Obama, unwilling to cede the stage fully to his opponents this week, leveled a counterattack in an interview released Saturday by The Associated Press, painting Mr. Romney as beholden to ''extreme'' House Republican policies harmful to the middle class.
''He has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken,'' Mr. Obama said. ''Governor Romney's policies would make things worse for middle-class families and offer no prospect for long-term opportunity for those striving to get into the middle class.''
The battleground map has remained remarkably stable in recent months, which leaves Mr. Obama with more paths to winning 270 electoral votes and places a burden on Mr. Romney to break through in states where he so far has not. But Republicans suddenly see encouraging signs in Wisconsin after the selection of Representative Paul D. Ryan as his running mate. Mr. Romney's chances hinge to a large degree on running up his advantage among white voters in swing states who show deep strains of opposition to Mr. Obama but do not yet trust Mr. Romney to look out for their interests, Republican strategists say.
Many of those voters are economically disaffected, and the Romney campaign has been trying to reach them with appeals built around an assertion that Mr. Obama is making it easier for welfare recipients to avoid work. The Romney campaign is airing an advertisement falsely charging that Mr. Obama has ''quietly announced'' plans to eliminate work and job training requirements for welfare beneficiaries, a message Mr. Romney's aides said resonates with working-class voters who see government as doing nothing for them.
The moves reflect a campaign infused with a sharper edge and overtones of class and race. On Friday, Mr. Romney said at a rally that no one had ever had to ask him about his birth certificate, and Mr. Ryan invoked his Catholicism and love of hunting. Democrats angrily said Mr. Romney's remark associated him with the fringe ''birther'' camp seeking falsely to portray Mr. Obama as not American.
The convention will focus on a dual fire-Obama-hire-Romney message that will be presented in an abbreviated fashion from Tuesday through Thursday. Party leaders said Saturday evening that the themes of the convention would be preserved, despite the disruption from Tropical Storm Isaac. Through videos, speeches and carefully staged programming, the convention will amplify what will constantly be described as Mr. Obama's failures, with a focus on accusations that he has undercut middle-class workers and small-business owners.
But with Ann Romney, Mr. Romney's wife, taking the stage on Tuesday night, the Republican gathering will be as much about presenting Mr. Romney as a warm-blooded family man who understands the tribulations of everyday people. The campaign, after spending months arguing that the family's Mormon faith was off limits, invited speakers from Mr. Romney's church to testify how he had helped them when they were in need.
Those concurrent themes reflect a realization by strategists inside the Romney campaign and its allies at outside groups in recent weeks: Republicans need to do more than critique Mr. Obama's economic record for Mr. Romney to win. With the race entering its final, decisive phase, strategists on both sides agree that Mr. Obama maintains a razor-thin edge.
That, several Republican officials said in interviews, is the result of a stubborn affinity for Mr. Obama among key swing voters who otherwise say they are disappointed in his job performance -- a dynamic the Romney campaign and its allies are seeking to change.
Mr. Law said his group, Crossroads, had reserved roughly $35 million in advertising for the rest of the campaign and planned to spend more on efforts speaking to their other perception, that Mr. Obama had not been able to deliver.
''These folks know they are not happy with what Obama has done, but they are struggling between, 'I voted for him, I liked him, but he's not getting the job done,' '' said Carl Forti, political director for American Crossroads. ''That's where Mitt needs to take advantage.''
But, strategists acknowledge, Mr. Romney still has work to do before those critical swing voters will view him as that alternative, particularly with polls showing that voters see him as less attuned to their needs and values than Mr. Obama is. While he hopes to improve his standing among women, strategists say Mr. Romney's chances hinge to a large degree on running up his edge among white voters who do not yet trust Mr. Romney.
''Right now the perceptions of him are allowing Barack Obama to stay in this race and keep a slight lead in spite of all the environmental factors that lead you to think he should be gone,'' said Matthew Dowd, a pollster for George W. Bush's campaigns. ''If he can change perceptions about himself, then the environment takes hold, and if the environment takes hold, they win.''
Mr. Romney's team is hoping to change perceptions starting with the Republican convention and, more important, with full access to the $186 million he and the Republican National Committee have on hand and can use as soon as Mr. Romney accepts the party's nomination. It will give him his first real financial advantage over Mr. Obama this year.
Here and in Boston, Mr. Romney's team is poised to sift through post-convention polling before pressing its new advantage with final advertising bets in key states.
''For undecided voters, Obama's job performance weighs more heavily than Mitt's current image,'' said Neil Newhouse, the pollster for Mr. Romney. ''They can measure what Obama has done, and his job performance numbers among those voters are extraordinarily weak.''
Central to the weeks ahead, strategists from both parties said, will be the perceptions of voters in battleground states like Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. Both sides agree that Mr. Romney's choice of Mr. Ryan has given Mr. Romney a new opportunity in Wisconsin. But, even Republicans say, the bigger electoral prize of Ohio, as of now seems to be tilting in Mr. Obama's direction.
With Crossroads and like-minded groups providing critical backup, Mr. Romney's campaign is freer to concentrate on building its candidate up and trying to repair the damage done to his image over the summer.
PHOTO: Representative Paul D. Ryan introduced Mitt Romney on Saturday at a rally in Powell, Ohio. (PHOTOGRAPH BY JIM WILSON/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A15)
MAP: The Ad Advantage in Battleground States: Nearly $300 million has been spent on presidential campaign ads since April, primarily in a handful of key states. Though President Obama has outspent Mitt Romney, when taking outside groups into account, Republicans have had the advantage in three-quarters of the nation's media markets. (Source: Campaign Media Analysis Group at Kantar Media); CHARTS: Ad spending by week: While spending by the candidates and the parties has increased steadily, outside Democratic groups have struggled to make a significant impact, spending just $13 million since April 10. Outside Republican groups, which have been coordinating their media buys, have spent $100 million. (CHARTS BY ALICIA PARLAPIANO/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A15)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/us/politics/mitt-romneys-campaign-adopts-a-harder-message.html
LOAD-DATE: August 26, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1161 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 26, 2012 Sunday
Zombie Candidate Crashes Republican Convention
BYLINE: EMMARIE HUETTEMAN
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 345 words
HIGHLIGHT: Campaigning to get AMC's "The Walking Dead" back on Dish Network, the first Zombie candidate for president will appear in Tampa on Sunday.
And they say President Obama and Mitt Romney can be stiff.
A. Zombie, billed as the nation's first Zombie presidential candidate, will appear in Tampa, Fla., Sunday, headlining the "Zombie Convention within a Convention" to kick off the weather-delayed Republican National Convention.
With his finger on the pulse of the people, he is running on a platform that emphasizes job creation ("I'll strive to increase America's workforce even if it kills me again,") and health care ("I am pro-Zombiecare. Don't be caught dead without it.")
But like many third-party candidates, Mr. Zombie is focused on one issue: getting AMC's post-apocalyptic drama "The Walking Dead" back on Dish Network.
The publicity stunt comes after Dish cut ties with AMC Networks this summer in the midst of a contract dispute, which Dish said had nothing to do with the decision to drop the network's channels: AMC, IFC, WE tv and the Sundance Channel. Dish said it came to its decision by comparing AMC Network's high renewal cost to its low ratings.
While the ratings for IFC, WE tv and the Sundance Channel aren't strong, "The Walking Dead" is basic cable's highest-rated drama of all time among 18- to 49-year-olds, according to The Nielsen Company.
With the third season of the popular drama starting Oct. 14, the A. Zombie campaign is urging Dish customers to push back against the decision and find a new television provider before the series returns.
The stunt is well-choreographed, with a Web site, a campaign ad, a Twitter feed and a cross-country bus tour that kicked off with Mr. Zombie declaring his candidacy - with the help of his human wife, naturally, because zombies can't talk - in San Diego, Calif., last week. Coming up on the schedule is a pro-Zombie rally at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Sept. 3.
Mr. Zombie isn't the only candidate who planned on crashing the Republican National Convention. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. originally planned a campaign stop in Tampa on Monday, but changed his plans, citing the approach of Tropical Storm Isaac.
LOAD-DATE: August 26, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1162 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 26, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
r omney's reinventi on
BYLINE: Karen Tumulty
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2576 words
Just under a year ago, Mitt Romney was looking at what promised to be a rough evening in Tampa, the same city where he will formally accept his party's presidential nomination this week.
At the time, that prize seemed to be slipping from his grasp. Polls showed Romney badly trailing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a late entry into the race who was a matinee idol of the right. And the rowdy crowd that had gathered for a tea-party-sponsored debate at the Florida State Fairgrounds was clearly in the mood for a rumble.
"You're going to get booed," Romney strategist Stuart Stevens recalls warning his candidate as they watched a television in a nearby trailer and assessed what awaited in the hall.
The former Massachusetts governor responded with . . . a big, deep chortle.
"It's happened before," he said.
But that night Perry was the one who got the catcalls, for being insufficiently tough on illegal immigrants. Romney was at his best, steady and confident as he tore apart Perry's contention that the sacrosanct Social Security system is a "Ponzi scheme." He left the stage having done what he wanted, which was to sow doubts that the swaggering Texan was the best candidate to go the distance against President Obama. Romney wasn't out to make Republicans love him. He was out to prove to them that they didn't have to.
That was the thing his more flamboyant rivals failed to understand about the complicated relationship Romney has with his party. It was why their constant attacks on his past apostasies, the biggest being the Obama-like health-care law he passed in Massachusetts, failed. Not even Romney's own limits as an orator and campaigner tripped him up.
"Republicans convinced themselves he was acceptable, if not exciting," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, another GOP primary contender who enjoyed a brief reign at the top of the polls. "His Teflon was 'I can beat Obama,' and Republicans said, 'That is enough for me.' "
The base's pragmatism, even in the dogmatic tea party era, was underestimated by everyone who ran against Romney, "including by me," Gingrich said.
But it is also true that this year, the name at the top of the ticket is not what defines the GOP identity as it has at times in the past. Some presidential candidates reshape their parties, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992, George W. Bush in 2000.
Romney fits more in the category of those who, with more mixed success, have run as true standard-bearers. Think Walter Mondale in 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996. The Republican brand these days is stamped on Capitol Hill. Romney shows no sign of setting himself apart from that agenda, as unpopular as it is among independent and swing voters.
Months before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for his presidential ticket, he endorsed the House Budget Committee chairman's controversial fiscal blueprint, which includes a plan to drastically overhaul Medicare. Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist predicted: "If Romney is president, he will sign a bill that looks very much like Ryan, and we will call it 'the Romney revolution.' "
Republicans, moreover, are seeing Romney as a transitional figure rather than a transformational one.
A year ago, it seemed that every GOP gathering was paying tribute to the centennial of Reagan's birth. But Romney's nominating convention will throw a spotlight on the next wave of conservative talent - not only his running mate, but also New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida; Ted Cruz, the tea party Senate candidate from Texas who upset the establishment pick; Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
"This new generation signals the future of the party," said Ralph Reed, the longtime GOP operative who heads the Faith and Freedom Coalition, an organization that aims to mobilize evangelical voters.
"Romney is both the midwife of and the beneficiary of their talent," Reed added. "And if he wins, they will spend the next four or eight years working with him, serving in his administration, and not incidentally, jockeying to succeed him."
But first, Romney must get elected. Between now and November will be a four-day infomercial from Tampa, in which he will have a chance to reintroduce himself to a broader audience; three presidential debates; and a day-by-day slog that is getting nastier with every new campaign commercial.
"The question for Mitt is how to grow beyond the primary and broaden his appeal. The convention will be an opportunity for that," said GOP consultant Mike Murphy, who worked on Romney's successful 2002 gubernatorial campaign and remains in touch with the candidates.
In a Time Magazine column last week, Murphy urged his old client to use the Tampa gathering, which has an expected audience of 20 million households, to "revise his pitch and start talking to general-election voters." There are no indications - talk of Etch A Sketches aside - that Romney will do that by trimming his positions. Nor is he distancing himself from a party that has moved to the right and has become as ideologically united as at any time in memory. On Friday, Romney even ventured to the fringe of the GOP with a clumsy joke that indulged those who contend Obama was not born in the United States.
With his surprising decision to run with Ryan, the intellectual leader of the conservative forces in the House, Romney has framed the election as more than just a referendum on the current occupant of the Oval Office. It will also be a choice between two starkly different governing philosophies.
Mirror image of 2008
That Romney's second run for the nomination succeeded is testament, in large measure, to the way he retooled his approach to politics after his defeat four years ago.
His 2.0 launch reflected both the lessons he learned from the past and the calculations he made about what lay ahead. As Romney often says when talking about his business career, he is a man who can count his share of mistakes. But those who have watched him closely know that rarely does he make the same one twice.
Romney's campaign this year is headquartered in the same dingy Boston waterfront building as it was in 2008, but everything else about the operation has been overhauled.
"This race was a mirror image of 2008," said Doug Gross, who was Romney's Iowa chairman that year but did not re-up this time around.
Despite speculation that the rise of the tea party would rewrite the playbook for winning the nomination, Romney decided early on a cautious, relatively conventional strategy.
Then he waited for each of his rivals in a weak field to self-immolate as they battled it out, a process helped along by the millions of dollars in negative ads that the outside super PAC Restore Our Future aired on his behalf.
"He is a manager who sticks with his strategies and implements them relentlessly," Gingrich said.
In his second run for president, Gingrich added, Romney has proven to be "much more stable, much more methodical. I think, in a way, calmer."
That discipline was on display the day after he formally announced his second bid for the presidency in June 2011, when Romney joined the lineup of GOP hopefuls who appeared before Reed's politically oriented Christian conservative group in Washington.
It was a potentially tense situation, given the mistrust that evangelicals have of Romney's Mormon faith. Many expected him to try to win over his audience by speaking of the commonalities of their religious beliefs.
Instead, Romney gave his standard stump speech, emphasizing unemployment, declining home prices, debt and foreclosures, and reminding the group of their shared foe: "Barack Obama has failed the American people." Romney was the only presidential candidate that day, other than libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who did not salt his address with frequent references to God.
It helped, of course, that talking about the economy played to Romney's strengths and his background, that it underscored Obama's greatest vulnerability, and that it happened to be at the top of voter concerns.
"Mitt Romney is a guy who, as they said at Bain [Capital, the private equity firm he founded], could see the trend line," said John Weaver, a top strategist for former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, another primary challenger. "He got ahead of the curve far enough, and well enough, that he became acceptable to the base of the party."
After his failed presidential campaign of 2008, aides say, Romney dedicated himself to figuring out what had gone wrong. He realized he had erred by trying to be all things to all Republicans - delivering an economic message when he was in front of local business groups, stressing his values before religious ones. He had angled to land on the right of his rivals on every front and to catch a wave with every news cycle.
His Iowa chairman Gross phoned the Boston headquarters on Thanksgiving 2007, just weeks before the caucuses in which Romney's campaign had invested $10 million, hoping to launch the primary season with a victory. "Who is it we're trying to get?" Gross recalled asking. But he said he couldn't get an answer: "They never figured it out."
Romney came in a distant second in Iowa to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. One month and four days later, he was out of the race, his $97 million candidacy - nearly half of which was financed out of his own fortune - amounting to barely a speed bump on John McCain's ride to the nomination.Romney had offered a fuzzy, off-the-rack kind of Republicanism that only served to reinforce the party's doubts about what he really believes, given his more moderate positions in the past on issues such as abortion and gay rights.
When Romney lost, "he was really frustrated, mostly," recalled Beth Myers, who was his campaign manager in 2008 and led his vice presidential search this year. "He felt that he had never been able to talk about his vision for the country."
Then there were the tactical blunders. In 2007 and 2008, Romney spent heavily on a "win early and win often" strategy, which left him no room or resources to recover from his loss in Iowa. He had also built a huge operation and hired legions of strategists, assuming that - as had been the case in business - reams of data and a diversity of viewpoints would yield the right answer. Instead, his political enterprise turned into a high-priced, feuding mess.
This time, he would run a smaller, tighter operation, shuffling some key aides and shedding others. He would not waste his money trying to win meaningless rituals such as straw polls or state primaries known as "beauty contests" where delegates were not awarded. He would build his operation for the long haul he saw coming.
"They were very clear that they saw this as nothing but a war of attrition," said Gross, who discussed the early 2012 strategy with Romney's team.
A year of gathering chits
During the offseason, Romney borrowed a page from one of the greatest comeback stories in modern political history. As Richard M. Nixon had in 1966, Romney hit the campaign trail during the 2010 midterm elections to gather chits and help position himself as the presumed front-runner in 2012.
In 2010, Romney made 33 appearances for congressional candidates and nearly 60 for state and local ones, visiting more than 30 states. His political action committee contributed $1.16 million to candidates and party organizations, ranging from high-profile gubernatorial and Senate races to statehouse candidates to county GOP operations.
He also made some unorthodox moves - for instance, bestowing an early endorsement on Nikki Haley, then a long shot in a bruising South Carolina Republican primary for governor. It was in part a gesture of gratitude to one of the few South Carolina GOP officials who had supported him in 2008. But it gave Haley a crucial boost of credibility against her better-known opponents.
"It was not the politically safe thing to do," recalled Tim Pearson, who was then Haley's campaign manager. "Governor Romney coming in and taking what people thought was a political risk changed what folks in the state, in the donor class, thought about Nikki Haley." And when she won, she proved to be a loyal ally - though it was not enough to prevent him from getting trounced in her state by Gingrich.
Those who are close to Romney said he went through another exercise that proved to be far more significant than was generally realized. Starting in 2008 and continuing through most of 2009, he wrote a book.
His wife, Ann, learned she had breast cancer and wanted a change of scenery and climate for her treatment. The couple sold the house in Belmont, Mass., where they had raised their five sons, and moved to a beachfront property in La Jolla, Calif. Romney exulted to friends about how he could hear the sound of the waves as he wrote.
"No Apologies" turned out to be a very different book from the one that he had written in advance of his 2008 race.
That earlier one, "Turnaround," was an account of his takeover of the scandal-ridden 2002 Winter Olympics, and read like one of those volumes that line the shelves of the management and leadership sections at the bookstore. "No Apology," published in 2010 and featuring a slightly grayer Mitt Romney on the cover, was his manifesto, a dense read with chapter titles such as "Why Nations Decline" and "A Free and Productive Economy." "He felt very clear, having written the book, about what he thought the prescriptions were," said Robert White, a partner of Romney's from his Bain Capital days who remains one of his closest friends and advisers.
Romney stayed within the bounds of Republican orthodoxy, but some of his ideas were edgy, especially amid economic uncertainty. In 2008, Romney was accused of pandering when he told auto workers in Michigan and textile workers in South Carolina that he would "fight to save every job." In his subsequent book, he championed "creative destruction" - the downsizing and restructuring of businesses to make room for innovation.
That left an opening for his opponents to remind voters that his work in private equity had been on behalf of investors, not the workers of the companies he acquired.
In New Hampshire, Gingrich accused Romney of having "looted" companies; in South Carolina, Perry said Romney had gotten rich off "failures and sticking it to someone else." But both of Romney's rivals ended up finding themselves on the defensive for rhetoric that, to Republican voters, soundedanti-business. That was part of the Teflon that Gingrich described - the base did not want to hear language that might come back to haunt their ultimate nominee.
In picking Romney, the increasingly conservative Republican Party voted with its head, rather than its heart.
Some worry about the consequences if that bet turns out to have been wrong. "If he is not successful, holy Toledo, there will be hell to pay in this party. The right wing is going to drive further right," said Gross, Romney's former Iowa chairman.
But that may happen even if he does win. For the Republican Party has decided that Mitt Romney is the means to an end. Which is exactly the point he has been making all along.
tumultyk@washpost.com
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this story.
LOAD-DATE: August 26, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1163 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 26, 2012 Sunday 4:17 AM EST
Todd Akin: 'We are going to be here through the November election';
Embattled congressman once again says he isn't going anywhere.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 424 words
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Why Ron Pauls presidential campaign may be the last of its kind
Romney wanders into the slippery slope of birtherism
House Democrats majority hopes rest on several former members
Todd Akin had the Worst Week in Washington
What War on Women? Gender gap on par with history
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* At a press conference in Missouri, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) reaffirmed his intent to remain in the Missouri Senate race. "We aregoingto be here through the November election and we are going to be here to win," he said. Akin added, "there may be somenegotiationsbut they don't include me."
* A new CNN/ORC International poll shows a dead heat between President Obama and Mitt Romney. Obama leads Romney 49 percent to 47 percent nationally among likely voters, anadvantagewhich is inside the survey's margin of error.
* Two GOP-aligned groups are up with new ads hitting Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) in the Wisconsin Senate race. Crossroads GPS is hitting Baldwin for voting to raise the nation's debt limit while a60 Plus Association spotcriticizesBaldwin's votes for the stimulus and the federal health care law. The Crossroads ad is backed by $250,000 while 60 Plus is spending $535,000.
* The National Republican Senatorial Committeenarrowlyoutraisedthe Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $6 million to $5.8 million in July. The DSCC ended the month with more money in the bank.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) may get bumped from his Thursday night speaking slot at the Republican National Convention so that Ann Romney can get prime time network coverage.
* Former Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine has launchedhis first Spanish language TV and radio spots in the Virginia Senate race. "As Governor, I worked with the Hispanic community.I increased the attendance of children in prekindergarten. I also increased state contracts given to small businesses," Kaine says in thecommercials.
* A GBA Strategies poll of the New Mexico Senate race conducted for Democratic Rep. Martin Heinrich's campaign shows him leading former Republican congresswoman Heather Wilson 51 percent to 44 percent.
* In a new TV ad,IndianaRepublican Senate nominee Richard Mourdock is trying tobrandRep. Joe Donnelly (D) as "Obama Joe."
THE FIX MIX:
Oh when the geese go marching in...
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1164 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 26, 2012 Sunday
Met 2 Edition
romney's reinvention
BYLINE: Karen Tumulty
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2551 words
Just under a year ago, Mitt Romney was looking at what promised to be a rough evening in Tampa, the same city where he will formally accept his party's presidential nomination this week.
At the time, that prize seemed to be slipping from his grasp. Polls showed Romney badly trailing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a late entry into the race who was a matinee idol of the right. And the rowdy crowd that had gathered for a tea-party-sponsored debate at the Florida State Fairgrounds was clearly in the mood for a rumble.
"You're going to get booed," Romney strategist Stuart Stevens recalls warning his candidate as they watched a television in a nearby trailer and assessed what awaited in the hall.
The former Massachusetts governor responded with . . . a big, deep chortle.
"It's happened before," he said.
But that night Perry was the one who got the catcalls, for being insufficiently tough on illegal immigrants. Romney was at his best, steady and confident as he tore apart Perry's contention that the sacrosanct Social Security system is a "Ponzi scheme." He left the stage having done what he wanted, which was to sow doubts that the swaggering Texan was the best candidate to go the distance against President Obama.
Romney wasn't out to make Republicans love him. He was out to prove to them that they didn't have to.
That was the thing his more flamboyant rivals failed to understand about the complicated relationship Romney has with his party. It was why their constant attacks on his past apostasies, the biggest being the Obama-like health-care law he passed in Massachusetts, failed. Not even Romney's own limits as an orator and campaigner tripped him up.
"Republicans convinced themselves he was acceptable, if not exciting," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, another GOP primary contender who enjoyed a brief reign at the top of the polls. "His Teflon was 'I can beat Obama,' and Republicans said, 'That is enough for me.' "
The base's pragmatism, even in the dogmatic tea party era, was underestimated by everyone who ran against Romney, "including by me," Gingrich said.
But it is also true that this year, the name at the top of the ticket is not what defines the GOP identity as it has at times in the past. Some presidential candidates reshape their parties, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992, George W. Bush in 2000.
Romney fits more in the category of those who, with more mixed success, have run as true standard-bearers. Think Walter Mondale in 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996. The Republican brand these days is stamped on Capitol Hill. Romney shows no sign of setting himself apart from that agenda, as unpopular as it is among independent and swing voters.
Months before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for his presidential ticket, he endorsed the House Budget Committee chairman's controversial fiscal blueprint, which includes a plan to drastically overhaul Medicare. Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist predicted: "If Romney is president, he will sign a bill that looks very much like Ryan, and we will call it 'the Romney revolution.' "
Republicans, moreover, are seeing Romney as a transitional figure rather than a transformational one.
A year ago, it seemed that every GOP gathering was paying tribute to the centennial of Reagan's birth. But Romney's nominating convention will throw a spotlight on the next wave of conservative talent - not only his running mate, but also New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida; Ted Cruz, the tea party Senate candidate from Texas who upset the establishment pick; Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
"This new generation signals the future of the party," said Ralph Reed, the longtime GOP operative who heads the Faith and Freedom Coalition, an organization that aims to mobilize evangelical voters.
"Romney is both the midwife of and the beneficiary of their talent," Reed added. "And if he wins, they will spend the next four or eight years working with him, serving in his administration, and not incidentally, jockeying to succeed him."
But first, Romney must get elected. Between now and November will be a four-day infomercial from Tampa, in which he will have a chance to reintroduce himself to a broader audience; three presidential debates; and a day-by-day slog that is getting nastier with every new campaign commercial.
"The question for Mitt is how to grow beyond the primary and broaden his appeal. The convention will be an opportunity for that," said GOP consultant Mike Murphy, who worked on Romney's successful 2002 gubernatorial campaign and remains in touch with the candidates.
In a Time Magazine columnlast week, Murphy urged his old client to use the Tampa gathering, which has an expected audience of 20 million households, to "revise his pitch and start talking to general-election voters."
There are no indications - talk of Etch A Sketches aside - that Romney will do that by trimming his positions. Nor is he distancing himself from a party that has moved to the right and has become as ideologically united as at any time in memory. On Friday, Romney even ventured to the fringe of the GOP with a clumsy joke that indulged those who contend Obama was not born in the United States.
With his surprising decision to run with Ryan, the intellectual leader of the conservative forces in the House, Romney has framed the election as more than just a referendum on the current occupant of the Oval Office. It will also be a choice between two starkly different governing philosophies.
Mirror image of 2008
That Romney's second run for the nomination succeeded is testament, in large measure, to the way he retooled his approach to politics after his defeat four years ago.
His 2.0 launch reflected both the lessons he learned from the past and the calculations he made about what lay ahead. As Romney often says when talking about his business career, he is a man who can count his share of mistakes. But those who have watched him closely know that rarely does he make the same one twice.
Romney's campaign this year is headquartered in the same dingy Boston waterfront building as it was in 2008, but everything else about the operation has been overhauled.
"This race was a mirror image of 2008," said Doug Gross, who was Romney's Iowa chairman that year but did not re-up this time around.
Despite speculation that the rise of the tea party would rewrite the playbook for winning the nomination, Romney decided early on a cautious, relatively conventional strategy.
Then he waited for each of his rivals in a weak field to self-immolate as they battled it out, a process helped along by the millions of dollars in negative ads that the outside super PAC Restore Our Future aired on his behalf.
"He is a manager who sticks with his strategies and implements them relentlessly," Gingrich said.
In his second run for president, Gingrich added, Romney has proven to be "much more stable, much more methodical. I think, in a way, calmer."
That discipline was on display the day after he formally announced his second bid for the presidency in June 2011, when Romney joined the lineup of GOP hopefuls who appeared before Reed's politically oriented Christian conservative group in Washington.
It was a potentially tense situation, given the mistrust that evangelicals have of Romney's Mormon faith. Many expected him to try to win over his audience by speaking of the commonalities of their religious beliefs.
Instead, Romney gave his standard stump speech, emphasizing unemployment, declining home prices, debt and foreclosures, and reminding the group of their shared foe: "Barack Obama has failed the American people." Romney was the only presidential candidate that day, other than libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who did not salt his address with frequent references to God.
It helped, of course, that talking about the economy played to Romney's strengths and his background, that it underscored Obama's greatest vulnerability, and that it happened to be at the top of voter concerns.
"Mitt Romney is a guy who, as they said at Bain [Capital, the private equity firm he founded], could see the trend line," said John Weaver, a top strategist for former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, another primary challenger. "He got ahead of the curve far enough, and well enough, that he became acceptable to the base of the party."
After his failed presidential campaign of 2008, aides say, Romney dedicated himself to figuring out what had gone wrong. He realized he had erred by trying to be all things to all Republicans - delivering an economic message when he was in front of local business groups, stressing his values before religious ones. He had angled to land on the right of his rivals on every front and to catch a wave with every news cycle.
His Iowa chairman Gross phoned the Boston headquarters on Thanksgiving 2007, just weeks before the caucuses in which Romney's campaign had invested $10 million, hoping to launch the primary season with a victory. "Who is it we're trying to get?" Gross recalled asking. But he said he couldn't get an answer: "They never figured it out."
Romney came in a distant second in Iowa to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. One month and four days later, he was out of the race, his $97 million candidacy - nearly half of which was financed out of his own fortune - amounting to barely a speed bump on John McCain's ride to the nomination.
Romney had offered a fuzzy, off-the-rack kind of Republicanism that only served to reinforce the party's doubts about what he really believes, given his more moderate positions in the past on issues such as abortion and gay rights.
When Romney lost, "he was really frustrated, mostly," recalled Beth Myers, who was his campaign manager in 2008 and led his vice presidential search this year. "He felt that he had never been able to talk about his vision for the country."
Then there were the tactical blunders. In 2007 and 2008, Romney spent heavily on a "win early and win often" strategy, which left him no room or resources to recover from his loss in Iowa. He had also built a huge operation and hired legions of strategists, assuming that - as had been the case in business - reams of data and a diversity of viewpoints would yield the right answer. Instead, his political enterprise turned into a high-priced, feuding mess.
This time, he would run a smaller, tighter operation, shuffling some key aides and shedding others. He would not waste his money trying to win meaningless rituals such as straw polls or state primaries known as "beauty contests" where delegates were not awarded. He would build his operation for the long haul he saw coming.
"They were very clear that they saw this as nothing but a war of attrition," said Gross, who discussed the early 2012 strategy with Romney's team.
A year of gathering chits
During the offseason, Romney borrowed a page from one of the greatest comeback stories in modern political history. As Richard M. Nixon had in 1966, Romney hit the campaign trail during the 2010 midterm elections to gather chits and help position himself as the presumed front-runner in 2012.
In 2010, Romney made 33 appearances for congressional candidates and nearly 60 for state and local ones, visiting more than 30 states. His political action committee contributed $1.16 million to candidates and party organizations, ranging from high-profile gubernatorial and Senate races to statehouse candidates to county GOP operations.
He also made some unorthodox moves - for instance, bestowing an early endorsementon Nikki Haley, then a long shot in a bruising South Carolina Republican primary for governor. It was in part a gesture of gratitude to one of the few South Carolina GOP officials who had supported him in 2008. But it gave Haley a crucial boost of credibility against her better-known opponents.
"It was not the politically safe thing to do," recalled Tim Pearson, who was then Haley's campaign manager. "Governor Romney coming in and taking what people thought was a political risk changed what folks in the state, in the donor class, thought about Nikki Haley." And when she won, she proved to be a loyal ally - though it was not enough to prevent him from getting trounced in her state by Gingrich.
Those who are close to Romney said he went through another exercise that proved to be far more significant than was generally realized. Starting in 2008 and continuing through most of 2009, he wrote a book.
His wife, Ann, learned she had breast cancer and wanted a change of scenery and climate for her treatment. The couple sold the house in Belmont, Mass., where they had raised their five sons, and moved to a beachfront property in La Jolla, Calif. Romney exulted to friends about how he could hear the sound of the waves as he wrote.
"No Apologies" turned out to be a very different book from the one that he had written in advance of his 2008 race.
That earlier one, "Turnaround," was an account of his takeover of the scandal-ridden 2002 Winter Olympics, and read like one of those volumes that line the shelves of the management and leadership sections at the bookstore. "No Apology," published in 2010 and featuring a slightly grayer Mitt Romney on the cover, was his manifesto, a dense read with chapter titles such as "Why Nations Decline" and "A Free and Productive Economy."
"He felt very clear, having written the book, about what he thought the prescriptions were," said Robert White, a partner of Romney's from his Bain Capital days who remains one of his closest friends and advisers.
Romney stayed within the bounds of Republican orthodoxy, but some of his ideas were edgy, especially amid economic uncertainty. In 2008, Romney was accused of pandering when he told auto workers in Michigan and textile workers in South Carolina that he would "fight to save every job." In his subsequent book, he championed "creative destruction" - the downsizing and restructuring of businesses to make room for innovation.
That left an opening for his opponents to remind voters that his work in private equity had been on behalf of investors, not the workers of the companies he acquired.
In New Hampshire, Gingrich accused Romney of having "looted" companies; in South Carolina, Perry said Romney had gotten rich off "failures and sticking it to someone else." But both of Romney's rivals ended up finding themselves on the defensive for rhetoric that, to Republican voters, soundedanti-business. That was part of the Teflon that Gingrich described - the base did not want to hear language that might come back to haunt their ultimate nominee.
In picking Romney, the increasingly conservative Republican Party voted with its head, rather than its heart.
Some worry about the consequences if that bet turns out to have been wrong. "If he is not successful, holy Toledo, there will be hell to pay in this party. The right wing is going to drive further right," said Gross, Romney's former Iowa chairman.
But that may happen even if he does win. For the Republican Party has decided that Mitt Romney is the means to an end. Which is exactly the point he has been making all along.
tumultyk@washpost.com
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this story.
LOAD-DATE: August 26, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1165 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 25, 2012 Saturday
The International Herald Tribune
Theater Critic or Political Reporter?
BYLINE: By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Foreign Desk; CURRENTS; Pg.
LENGTH: 902 words
NEW YORK -- From time to time, a word seeps into the language and makes its own small contribution to defining the age.
In American political discourse today, ''optics'' is one such word.
This is not about lenses or really fast cables. That is what we used to be talking about when we talked about optics. But in America today, if you catch ''optics'' in the media, it very likely has to do with politics. A reporter or party operative or pundit will be analyzing the election in what has become the preferred style for such analysis -- the chronicle of semblances.
''For Romney, there is little value in trying to compete with the optics of Obama's trip,'' Dan Balz, a veteran political reporter at The Washington Post, wrote before Mitt Romney's recent visit to Europe and the Middle East. In May, the news outlet Politico reviewed an appearance by a surrogate for President Barack Obama this way: ''The optics were awful for the Obama campaign.'' Of Mr. Romney's event on a farm in New Hampshire, a column in The Union Leader, an influential local newspaper, said: ''The optics on the event were well planned and executed.''
The best political reporters -- and there are many excellent ones -- treat optics as a veneer to be deconstructed. But there is also a common habit today of covering optics for their own sake. For some reporters, narrating the optics of a thing can substitute for covering the thing itself. This is confusing, because the whole point of journalism is to go beyond optics -- to probe how things really are beneath the trickery of how they seem.
Since Theodore White's book ''The Making of the President, 1960'' established the genre, the behind-the-scenes campaign account has been ascendant in American reporting. But much has changed since those days. Campaigns have become more disciplined and scripted, depriving the press of fodder. And they have gained, through YouTube, Twitter and blogs, new ways to reach voters, without journalistic mediation. So what are reporters -- their reporting commodified and starved of access -- to do?
Many have filled the void by focusing attention on optics, strategy and process -- and doing so from a strategist's eye-view. The style of analysis readily found on politically themed television talk shows, for instance, involves a mash-up of campaign Kremlinology (Which adviser pressed Mitt Romney to release his tax returns, and which adviser didn't?) and an insider's view of big decisions (Will it play better in Ohio if Barack Obama disavows the ad or if he professes ignorance?).
This is not the raw, character-driven portraiture of the past. The questions driving the reporter become: Will this tactic work? Will this narrative sell? Not: Who is this candidate, and should he win?
When, for example, the Romney ticket selected Representative Paul D. Ryan as its No. 2, this was the leaf-reading from a dean of political reporters, John Heilemann, a co-author of ''Game Change,'' a best-selling chronicle of the 2008 election: ''Chicago and the White House perceive this as a broader capitulation regarding the core dynamic of the race: an acceptance of the 'choice election' framing, which is exactly the frame that the incumbent and his people have embraced and attempted to propagate from the start.''
Several traits of the chronicle of semblances are visible here. There is the synecdoche ''Chicago,'' an inside-Washington way of saying ''the Obama campaign'' that casts the reporter more as campaign insider than skeptical outsider. There is, in the talk of perceptions and framing and propagation, an adoption of the campaign strategist's jargon and way of thinking. And there is the tone through which the reporter almost merges with the campaign, such that the insertion of ''we'' in a few places could turn it into an internal memo.
In its more benign forms, this style of coverage means that media outlets can report as news the fact that a candidate plans to launch one strategy or another, as The Associated Press did recently in the case of Mr. Obama.
''President Barack Obama plans to start picking apart other sections of Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's sweeping budget proposals as he tries to paint the G.O.P. ticket as too extreme for the nation,'' the article read, using a nickname for the Republican Party. It further offered that ''the line of criticism will be coupled with television ads.''
Such copy is harmless enough. But at times reporting from a strategist's vantage point goes all the way. In these cases, the reporter ceases merely to write from that perspective. Instead, he internalizes the strategist's problems so fully that they become, in a sense, his own problems. And so he might venture to become a strategist himself, offering a campaign advice.
''From here on out, Mitt Romney really should just shut up and smile,'' Michael Hirsh, the chief correspondent of the National Journal, wrote before the candidate's recent trip to Europe. Mr. Hirsh added: ''What Romney really needs to worry about is the optics of this trip. No one expects him to say much.''
This is the circular logic inherent in the chronicle of semblances: a reporter counseling Mr. Romney to throw reporters like him off the scent -- to create nice optics that liberate the candidate from revealing his beliefs or what kind of leader he might be.
Join an online conversation at http://anand.ly ; Follow on Twitter.com/anandwrites
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/us/25iht-currents25.html
LOAD-DATE: August 25, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1166 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 25, 2012 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
G.O.P. Convention Will Include Video Tribute to Paul
BYLINE: By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 858 words
WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's campaign on Friday extended an olive branch to the small army of Ron Paul delegates who will arrive in Tampa, Fla., next week even as Mr. Romney's lawyers sought to prevent a similar show of political force at future conventions.
Republicans will run a tribute video to Mr. Paul on Tuesday night, the second night of the Republican National Convention, part of an effort to soothe the delegates that Mr. Paul collected during his long primary battle with Mr. Romney this year.
But at the same time, the campaign proposed a new rule that would prohibit states from holding nonbinding primary contests and then picking the actual delegates at a later state convention. The new rule was narrowly approved by the convention's rules committee and is set to be adopted Monday by the convention delegates.
Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman who did not win a single primary or caucus during his run for the nomination this year, used the existing process to amass a large delegation, primarily in states where Mr. Romney had won nonbinding contests.
After losing a primary or caucus, supporters of Mr. Paul frequently swarmed later state conventions, turning what had been a victory for Mr. Romney into a delegation bound to vote for Mr. Paul at the national convention.
Supporters of Mr. Paul were hoping to force his name into nomination at the convention, giving him a national platform. But Mr. Romney's backers made sure that did not happen, and denied Mr. Paul a speech during the four-day event.
A.J. Spiker, the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party and a supporter of Mr. Paul, told Radio Iowa that the new rule was unfair. Mr. Paul came in third in Iowa's caucus in January, but earned nearly all of the state's delegates at a later convention.
''I'm shocked that the Romney campaign would decide to divide Republicans just before the national convention,'' Mr. Spiker said.
A top aide to Mr. Romney said the video was proposed by supporters of Mr. Paul and approved by convention planners as an expression of solidarity with Mr. Paul's advocates, many of whom disagree with Mr. Romney in many policy areas.
''We feel that we're in a good place,'' said Russ Schriefer, a top media strategist for Mr. Romney and a central planner for the convention. ''We know that not everybody is going to agree with us at all times.'' In the film about Mr. Paul, he said, ''Several of his colleagues will give testimony to his principles and his dedication to America.''
Mr. Schriefer said that while Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul ''certainly disagree on many issues,'' the onetime rivals had ''a lot of mutual respect.'' In addition to the video, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mr. Paul's son, will address the convention on Monday.
Republicans also confirmed Friday that Ann Romney's convention speech was moving to Tuesday night after the party failed to persuade the broadcast networks to televise any of the Monday convention speeches.
Mr. Schriefer had said Friday morning that convention officials were still optimistic that the networks would change their minds. But by the end of the day, Mr. Romney's camp gave in and agreed to move his wife's speech so that she would receive some prime-time coverage.
Republican officials also described the themes they hoped to offer during the convention.
Speakers on Monday will hammer President Obama as a ''failure'' as they try to drive home the theme that ''we can do better.'' Mr. Schriefer said the speeches would not be overly negative, but promised to draw a sharp contrast between Mr. Romney and the president.
''You need to lay down the predicate and make the case of why President Obama has failed and why this administration has failed on many levels,'' Mr. Schriefer said. He said the speakers would ''talk about the areas where President Obama hasn't lived up to his many promises.''
The second night will be built around Mr. Romney's criticism of the president's comments at a rally that ''if you've got a business, you didn't build that.'' Mr. Romney has seized on that comment in speeches and television commercials, suggesting that the president was dismissing the work of small-business owners.
Mr. Obama's campaign has accused Mr. Romney of twisting the president's words. Independent fact-checkers have said the full context of the remarks makes clear that the president was talking about government's role in helping to build infrastructure like roads and bridges.
Mr. Schriefer said the convention speakers on Tuesday would make the case that the remark by Mr. Obama ''showed that he more believed that government has a bigger role in job creation.''
The effort to tell Mr. Romney's personal story will be left for Thursday, when he will arrive to formally accept his party's nomination to be president.
Republicans said the speakers on the last day would be people who had known or worked with Mr. Romney in his church or at the 2002 Olympics, including three former Olympians: Kim Rhode, Mike Eruzione and Derek Parra.
PHOTO: Some members of the Republican Party are in Tampa, Fla., laying the groundwork for the convention, which starts Monday. (PHOTOGRAPH BY STEPHEN CROWLEY/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/us/politics/gop-convention-to-pay-tribute-to-ron-paul.html
LOAD-DATE: August 25, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1167 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 25, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
Democrats focusing on female vote
BYLINE: Krissah Thompson
SECTION: A section; Pg. A06
LENGTH: 823 words
In the next week, the Obama campaign will redouble its efforts to woo women voters, as Republicans continue to distance themselves from Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin's controversial comments on rape and abortion. President Obama's campaign released a Web video Friday featuring several women who say they have left the GOP because of the party's antiabortion stance.
Democrats will feature a host of female speakers at their national convention next month. Democrats also will hold a "Women Vote 2012 Summit" in Las Vegas on Saturday. And several Democratic congresswomen and Obama supporters will head next week to Philadelphia, Richmond, Cleveland, Tampa, Manchester, N.H., and Raleigh, N.C., to talk about reproductive rights and women's health. The campaign has dubbed it the "Romney/Ryan: Wrong for Women" tour. The events continue the Obama campaign's outreach to female voters, who long have been reliable Democratic supporters. Polls show that women are leaning toward Obama, with 53 percent of female registered voters backing him, compared with 39 percent for Mitt Romney. Male voters are split evenly, with 46 percent supporting each candidate, according to a recent poll by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The poll was conducted before Akin's comments Sunday, when he said that women rarely become pregnant in cases of "legitimate rape." Akin has since apologized and said he misspoke.The focus on women's health issues is a two-pronged strategy, said William A. Galston, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and former Democratic aide. Both campaigns are "trying to raise the enthusiasm level of their core supporters," he said. And these issues also distract Romney from his message.
"Every day not spent talking about the economy is a day wasted by Mitt Romney's campaign," Galston said. "Despite the fact that Romney was alert in repudiating not only the statement but Akin himself, there is still a chance that guilt by association will take hold."
Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said women care most about "growing the economy, reducing our debt, and securing a more prosperous future for our children and their children. . . . Women have suffered disproportionally under President Obama, with women in the workplace suffering historic setbacks."
In Obama's Web ad, female voters - one of whom calls herself a conservative - paint the entire Republican Party as out of step on women's reproductive issues, saying, "Government shouldn't be deciding what I can and cannot do with my own body."
"What tends to happen is you just go and you vote and you click the 'R' box. Women need to know what's going on. This is not the party I supported 10 years ago," Maria Ciano, 31, said in an interview. She is a homemaker in Westminster, Colo., who appears in the video. "They are talking about things that [are] none of their business. They are going too far."
But chances that GOP women will swing their support to Obama are slim, said political strategists and those who study women's voting patterns. Ciano, who was raised Republican but voted for Obama in 2008 and had stopped affiliating with the GOP years before that, is an exception.
Nearly 90 percent of registered Republican women plan to vote for Romney, about the same as registered GOP men, according to the Post-Kaiser poll. Sixty-six percent of GOP women say abortion should be illegal all or most of the time, compared with 62 percent of GOP men. More than half of Republican women say the party shares most of their values.
"Who they are trying to go after with those ads are not so much the Republican women but independent women or the swing voters who haven't decided yet," said Susan Carroll, an expert on women's participation in politics and a professor at Rutgers University. "Akin's comments in a lot of ways were handed to [Democrats] on a silver platter. The unfortunate part of this is that women's reproductive freedom and lives are being thrown around as campaign fodder."
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, also will travel the country for the Obama campaign next week talking about abortion rights. She said the issue has begun to animate Democratic women, which could spur higher turnout.
"Women are making the connection that the personal is political," Keenan said.
Issues such as abortion and contraception were not expected to get much traction this campaign cycle, given polls that show the economy is voters' top concern, said Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women in Politics Institute at American University.
"I don't necessarily think that people are going to cast their ballots based on their position on abortion or contraception," she said. "But the way the parties have polarized on these issues says something about whether you can trust that party on a whole range of issues."
thompsonk@washpost.com
Polling manager Peyton Craighill contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 25, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1168 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 25, 2012 Saturday
Suburban Edition
Democrats focusing on female vote
BYLINE: Krissah Thompson
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A06
LENGTH: 820 words
In the next week, the Obama campaign will redouble its efforts to woo women voters, as Republicans continue to distance themselves from Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin's controversial comments on rape and abortion.
President Obama's campaign released a Web video Friday featuring several women who say they have left the GOP because of the party's antiabortion stance.
Democrats will feature a host of female speakers at their national convention next month. Democrats also will hold a "Women Vote 2012 Summit" in Las Vegas on Saturday. And several Democratic congresswomen and Obama supporters will head next week to Philadelphia, Richmond, Cleveland, Tampa, Manchester, N.H., and Raleigh, N.C., to talk about reproductive rights and women's health. The campaign has dubbed it the "Romney/Ryan: Wrong for Women" tour.
The events continue the Obama campaign's outreach to female voters, who long have been reliable Democratic supporters. Polls show that women are leaning toward Obama, with 53 percent of female registered voters backing him, compared with 39 percent for Mitt Romney. Male voters are split evenly, with 46 percent supporting each candidate, according to a recent poll by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The poll was conducted before Akin's comments Sunday, when he said that women rarely become pregnant in cases of "legitimate rape." Akin has since apologized and said he misspoke.
The focus on women's health issues is a two-pronged strategy, said William A. Galston, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and former Democratic aide. Both campaigns are "trying to raise the enthusiasm level of their core supporters," he said. And these issues also distract Romney from his message.
"Every day not spent talking about the economy is a day wasted by Mitt Romney's campaign," Galston said. "Despite the fact that Romney was alert in repudiating not only the statement but Akin himself, there is still a chance that guilt by association will take hold."
Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said women care most about "growing the economy, reducing our debt, and securing a more prosperous future for our children and their children. . . . Women have suffered disproportionally under President Obama, with women in the workplace suffering historic setbacks."
In Obama's Web ad, female voters - one of whom calls herself a conservative - paint the entire Republican Party as out of step on women's reproductive issues, saying, "Government shouldn't be deciding what I can and cannot do with my own body."
"What tends to happen is you just go and you vote and you click the 'R' box. Women need to know what's going on. This is not the party I supported 10 years ago," Maria Ciano, 31, said in an interview. She is a homemaker in Westminster, Colo., who appears in the video. "They are talking about things that [are] none of their business. They are going too far."
But chances that GOP women will swing their support to Obama are slim, said political strategists and those who study women's voting patterns. Ciano, who was raised Republican but voted for Obama in 2008 and had stopped affiliating with the GOP years before that, is an exception.
Nearly 90 percent of registered Republican women plan to vote for Romney, about the same as registered GOP men, according to the Post-Kaiser poll. Sixty-six percent of GOP women say abortion should be illegal all or most of the time, compared with 62 percent of GOP men. More than half of Republican women say the party shares most of their values.
"Who they are trying to go after with those ads are not so much the Republican women but independent women or the swing voters who haven't decided yet," said Susan Carroll, an expert on women's participation in politics and a professor at Rutgers University. "Akin's comments in a lot of ways were handed to [Democrats] on a silver platter. The unfortunate part of this is that women's reproductive freedom and lives are being thrown around as campaign fodder."
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, also will travel the country for the Obama campaign next week talking about abortion rights. She said the issue has begun to animate Democratic women, which could spur higher turnout.
"Women are making the connection that the personal is political," Keenan said.
Issues such as abortion and contraception were not expected to get much traction this campaign cycle, given polls that show the economy is voters' top concern, said Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women in Politics Institute at American University.
"I don't necessarily think that people are going to cast their ballots based on their position on abortion or contraception," she said. "But the way the parties have polarized on these issues says something about whether you can trust that party on a whole range of issues."
thompsonk@washpost.com
Polling manager Peyton Craighill contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 25, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1169 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 24, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
It's the President's Message, With President Clinton
BYLINE: By MARK LANDLER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 647 words
WASHINGTON -- Former President Bill Clinton is not only campaigning for President Obama in his re-election bid. In a new 30-second commercial released on Thursday by the Obama campaign, he is practically channeling him.
''This is a clear choice,'' Mr. Clinton says of the race between Mr. Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney. Describing the Republican economic blueprint as deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, Mr. Clinton says, ''That's what got us in trouble in the first place.''
His words could have been lifted from a recent commercial by Mr. Obama, called ''The Choice,'' in which the president presents himself as a defender of the middle class against predatory Republicans. Even the settings are similar: both men, seated in well-appointed rooms and wearing conservative suits, speaking straight to the camera.
It is the most visible effort yet by the last Democratic president in support of the current one -- and it marks the beginning of a period of intensified engagement by Mr. Clinton, whose relationship with Mr. Obama has traveled from bitter antagonism to chilly distance to a cautious embrace. In two weeks, he will have the coveted role of placing Mr. Obama's name into nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
For the Obama campaign, Mr. Clinton has obvious appeal: he is a popular former president with a strong economic record and a reputation as a defender of the middle class. But Mr. Clinton may be most valuable because of his credibility with a voting constituency that Mr. Obama has struggled with, working-class whites.
''There is no Democrat who is more trusted than President Clinton by white working-class voters for having their interests at heart and being on their side,'' said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who is working with Priorities USA Action, a ''super PAC'' that supports Mr. Obama. ''When it comes to what it takes to make the economy work for the middle class, Bill Clinton is a virtual Good Housekeeping seal of approval.''
Mr. Clinton could help blunt what Obama campaign officials say is a calculated effort by Mr. Romney to peel working-class whites away from the president by suggesting, in recent ads, that Mr. Obama dismantled a central plank of Mr. Clinton's welfare reform law that requires welfare recipients to work in return for benefits.
Although in the Obama ad, Mr. Clinton does not address that claim, which has been discredited by fact-checkers, he makes it clear that he believes Mr. Obama, not Mr. Romney, is the right choice to ''rebuild America from the ground up.'' Mr. Clinton's words are intercut with images of a construction worker heaving a lunchbox out of a pickup truck and Mr. Obama talking to voters over a kitchen table (the same image appears in Mr. Obama's ad).
Mr. Obama has struggled with working-class white voters since the 2008 campaign when he declared during a fund-raiser that people in economically depressed small towns cling to ''guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them,'' a comment that was seized on by his Democratic opponent at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a last-ditch effort to deny him the nomination.
The Obama campaign has hoped to hold on to more of those voters this year by portraying Mr. Obama as their defender against the favor-the-rich policies of Mr. Romney.
Campaign officials said they would use Mr. Clinton as much as he will let them, and he seems game for it. But they will have to compete for his time. The two other members of the Clinton family -- Mrs. Clinton, the secretary of state, and Chelsea Clinton, a correspondent for NBC News -- are both barred from politics. That means for any Democratic candidate seeking the Clinton imprimatur, Mr. Clinton is the only choice.
PHOTO: ''This is a clear choice,'' former President Bill Clinton says in a new 30-second commercial in support of President Obama.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/politics/bill-clinton-in-new-commercial-channels-obama.html
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1170 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 24, 2012 Friday
Ron Paul Tribute Video on the G.O.P. Convention Schedule
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 545 words
HIGHLIGHT: Republicans will show a Ron Paul tribute video on the second night of Mitt Romney's convention next week, part of an effort to soothe the small army of delegates that Mr. Paul collected during his long primary battle with Mr. Romney this year.
Republicans will show a Ron Paul tribute video on the second night of Mitt Romney's convention next week, part of an effort to soothe the small army of delegates that Mr. Paul collected during his long primary battle with Mr. Romney this year.
A top aide to Mr. Romney said the video on Tuesday night was proposed by supporters of Mr. Paul and approved by convention planners as an olive branch to Mr. Paul's activists, many of whom disagree with Mr. Romney in many policy areas.
"We feel that we're in a good place. We know that not everybody is going to agree with us at all times," said Russ Schriefer, a top media strategist for Mr. Romney and a central planner for the convention. In the film, he said, "Several of his colleagues will give testimony to his principles and his dedication to America."
Mr. Schriefer said that while Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul "certainly disagree on many issues," the onetime rivals had "a lot of mutual respect" for each other. In addition to the video, Mr. Paul's son, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, will be addressing the convention hall on Monday.
Republican officials on Friday morning also described the themes they hoped to offer during the four-day nominating convention.
Speakers on Monday will hammer President Obama as a "failure" as they try to drive home the theme that "we can do better." Mr. Shriefer said the speeches would not be overly negative, but promised a to draw a sharp contrast between Mr. Romney and the president.
"You need to lay down the predicate and make the case of why President Obama has failed and why this administration has failed on many levels," Mr. Schriefer said. He said the speakers on Monday would "talk about the areas where President Obama hasn't lived up to his many promises."
The second night of the convention will be built around Mr. Romney's criticism of the president's comments at a summertime rally that "if you've got a business - you didn't build that." Mr. Romney has seized on that comment in speeches and television commercials, suggesting that the president was dismissing the work of small-business owners.
Mr. Obama's campaign has accused Mr. Romney of twisting the president's words. Independent fact-checkers have said the full context of the remarks make clear that the president was talking about government's role in helping to build infrastructure like roads and bridges.
Mr. Schriefer said the convention speakers on Tuesday would make the case that the remark by Mr. Obama "showed that he more believed that government has a bigger role in job creation."
The effort to tell Mr. Romney's personal story will be left for Thursday, when the candidate will arrive to formally accept his party's nomination to be president.
Republicans said the speakers on the last day would feature people who know and have worked with Mr. Romney during his life, including people who worked with him in his church and at the 2002 Olympics. Among the speakers will be three former Olympians: Kim Rhode, Mike Eruzione and Derek Parra.
Paul and Republican Party Officials Reach Deal on Delegates
No Nomination, but Paul Predicts Strong Contingent at G.O.P. Convention
Still in the Race, and Plotting a Path to the Convention
Meanwhile, Paul Keeps Campaigning
Disruption Closes a Missouri Caucus Before Vote
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1171 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 24, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
Knock, knock, knocking on voters' doors;
How the Koch brothers' well-funded non-profit is rocking the swing states
BYLINE: Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 1423 words
Clutching Samsung tablets filled with interactive maps, eight conservative activists gathered in a Food Lion parking lot here on a sweltering summer afternoon to get their marching orders: Knock on doors in this Raleigh suburb and identify residents opposed to President Obama's health care law and his stewardship of the economy -- all part of an ambitious voter-outreach campaign by Americans for Prosperity, a non-profit backed by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch that is emerging as one of biggest outside forces of the 2012 election.
The Kochs, who own an oil, chemical and textile conglomerate that Forbes magazine pegs as the nation's second-largest private company, have become the country's leading figures of libertarian activism. The Koch duo (pronounced "coke") have injected millions into an array of foundations, think tanks and political groups to spread their small-government, anti-regulation philosophy, which their critics argue matches their economic interests.
Obama targeted them in the first TV ad of his re-election campaign as "secretive oil billionaires." And Hollywood has joined in: A new comedy, The Campaign, features the fictional Motch brothers, business titans who try to rig the election to advance their corporate agenda.
"It's almost like Kochs have created an alternative to the Republican Party that pushes their brand of conservatism -- an economy with less regulation and one in which the government intervenes far less than it does now," said Bill Allison of the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political money. "I don't think we've seen anything like this before, and a lot of it is under the radar."
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) has been at the forefront of the libertarian attacks on Obama, blistering him with $25 million worth of commercials this month. The first round focused on the nation's rising debt and a call for Obama's ouster. AFP officials stress, however, that their goal isn't to elect Democrats or Republicans but to educate voters on the candidates' positions and build a cadre of activists willing to hold elected officials accountable after Election Day.
The group is well on its way to amassing more than $100 million this year, AFP President Tim Phillips said, but he notes that less than half of the money will be spent on ads. Instead, most of the activity will happen far from the spotlight as the group taps an army of 2.1 million activists to reach voters in swing states such as North Carolina, which Obama won by 14,177 votes in 2008 and where he'll be renominated for the presidency next month at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.
AFP's goal: to reach about 8.5 million voters in more than a dozen battleground states. The group's ramped-up activity highlights the ways independent political groups of all stripes and political allegiances -- often funded by a handful of wealthy donors -- are racing to shape national policy. And it points to an aggressive expansion by Republican independent groups into voter-mobilization efforts that were once the province of candidates and the parties.
Know the voter
AFP's voter-canvassing is a precise operation -- distilling information culled from a massive voter data warehouse, also created with the Kochs' financial backing. Conservatives say they took their cue from Democratic-aligned groups, who used a vast voter databank funded with help from billionaire financier George Soros to identify and turn out voters in 2004 and again in 2008.
The conservatives' data-gathering operation, called Themis for the Greek goddess of divine order, amasses data on millions of Americans and allows political strategists with AFP and other like-minded groups to pinpoint potential supporters and bombard them in person or via the phone and Internet with personalized messages.
"Our geo-targeting looks at everything from voting data to Census data to consumer-purchasing information," Phillips said. "We know their magazine subscriptions. In some cases, we know the websites they prefer to surf."
Launched in 2003, AFP and its sister organization, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, have grown in size and influence, now employing 200 people in 31 states.
AFP helped organize some of the raucous protests at 2009 congressional town-hall-style meetings to oppose Obama's health care plan and rallied its supporters in recent years to oppose Democratic-backed legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. On that day in late June when the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law as constitutional, the group immediately announced a $9 million ad campaign in 12 presidential swing states to slam the law as one of the "largest tax increases in history."
Little is publicly known about precise sources of the group's funding. Americans for Prosperity and its foundation reported combined revenue of nearly $39.6 million in 2010, tax returns show. David Koch is the foundation's president.
Americans for Prosperity is a non-profit "social welfare" organization that can take unlimited money, but does not have to publicly disclose the sources of its money. (That's in contrast to super PACs, committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts, but must disclose contributors.)
Phillips declined to reveal funders, saying such disclosure may have a "chilling effect" on donors.
Tar Heel State opening
North Carolina -- one of nine states won by George W. Bush in 2004 that shifted to Obama four years later -- is home to one of AFP's busiest state chapters with nearly 140,000 activists.
Obama, too, has a robust activist network in the state, where he became the first Democrat to carry North Carolina since Jimmy Carter's victory in 1976. His campaign has opened more than 40 state offices and installed hundreds of voter-registration boxes in barbershops and salons.
But Obama's narrow win in 2008 came against a Republican ticket so cash-strapped that "it was virtually impossible for anyone here to get a McCain-Palin yard sign," said Dee Stewart, a GOP strategist in Raleigh.
The picture is markedly different this year. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party out-raised Obama and Democrats in July -- the third month in a row -- and Romney has opened 20 offices in the state. Further adding to Democrats' worries: Jobs figures released last week show unemployment in the state climbed to 9.6% in July, topping the 8.3% rate for the nation.
Dallas Woodhouse, AFP's North Carolina director, said he believes support for Obama has waned in the white, working-class suburbs that voted blue in 2008. "They are contending with high food prices, big gasoline bills," he said, "and their young adult children with college degrees are stuck at home with Mom, flipping burgers for a living."
Finding those who 'disapprove'
Back in Garner on a recent Tuesday evening, the small band of Americans for Prosperity volunteers takes to the streets to find some of those voters.
George Hansen, 74, tells volunteer Amy Bryson, 30, that he's deeply worried about the economy. His adult daughter works at a pet store and struggles with her mortgage, but she can't find a better-paying job, he said. He voted for Obama but isn't sure whom to support in November.
A few blocks away, volunteer Peter Morley, 69, reads his survey questions to Recia Long as she sits on her front porch, smoking a cigarette. Obama's economic policies have had no impact, she says. How does she feel about the 2010 health care law? "Disapprove," the 63-year-old retiree answers. With a few touches on the tablet's screen, Morley logs her responses. She's a likely target for follow-up communication.
Josette Chmeil, 44, relishes her role with AFP. The energetic ex-New Yorker who now runs her own business as a professional organizer in Durham, N.C., said she is appalled by what she views as government intrusion into personal matters.
"New York is now a nanny state that's governing the size of soft drink you can buy," she says, referring to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's drive to ban the sale of super-size sugary drinks. "It wasn't like that 20 years ago."
She's one of AFP's most active Raleigh-area volunteers, devoting as many as seven hours a week. During the canvassing, she strides quickly up concrete driveways despite 90-degree heat and swarming gnats. Most of her assigned residents decline to take the survey.
"It's not frustrating," she says later. "If I knock on 20 doors and have one person I can have a dialogue with and change their perception, that's success."
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By Sara D. Davis for USA TODAY On voter patrol: Political canvasser Amy Bryson gets input from George Hansen of Raleigh, N.C.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: COVER STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1172 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 24, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Obama's campaign strategy emphasizes feet on ground
BYLINE: T.W. Farnam;Dan Eggen
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 2368 words
When President Obama campaigned in Las Vegas on Wednesday, his aides had laid the groundwork by opening 18 field offices around the city. Mitt Romney's state operation has opened three. In the critical battleground state, the Nevada Democratic Party has been building staff for two years and now has nearly 200 people organizing volunteers, knocking on doors, registering voters and compiling lists of supporters. Romney's Nevada campaign is backed up by about 40 workers.
In Ohio, another closely fought swing state, the Democratic state party employs nearly 300 people - more than the Republican National Committee in Washington and almost four times as many as the Ohio GOP.
That gap in the candidates' ground efforts is mirrored around the country as the presidential contest heads into its final weeks, with Democratic campaign workers outnumbering Republicans nearly three to one, according to a Washington Post analysis of campaign spending reports.
The numbers reflect a fundamental difference in the way the rival campaigns are deploying resources as they battle to capture the presidency. Obama is spending earlier and investing more in his state campaign infrastructure, putting a bigger emphasis on person-to-person contact with potential voters.
Romney and Republicans are focusing more on advertising and stockpiling funds, anticipating a significant and growing money advantage in the fall. The GOP candidate and his allies - the party and independent groups - have $105 million more sitting in bank accounts than the Democrats. For the period after the conventions, they could easily outspend Democrats two to one, with most of it likely to go to more television ads. "We're a little wiser in our spending of dollars than the other side, apparently," Romney told donors in Texas this week. "I'm not managing their campaign for them, but we're going to spend our money wisely. We're going to spend it to win."
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina countered that the Republicans have "already missed a year of persuasion on the ground."
"At some point, people are going to look to their friends and neighbors about what decision they're going to make," Messina said. "We think that's going to be a big chunk of how we win this thing."
An aggressive ground game was a hallmark of Obama's resounding 2008 victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). But four years earlier, Republicans were viewed as having a superior grass-roots effort for George W. Bush's reelection campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who outsourced much of the work to allied interest groups and unions.
Democrats have traditionally benefited more from on-the-ground organizing by unions, which tend to favor person-to-person contact with their members. In recent elections, most large Republican interest groups have spent money exclusively on television commercials.
The personal contacts, however, do not ensure victory. Democrats promoted their bigger operation in the recall election of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) this year, but Republicans outspent Democrats overall and Walker won by seven percentage points. Before the loss, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called that race "the dry run that we need of our massive, significant, dynamic grass-roots presidential campaign."
In this election, the Obama campaign and the DNC have transferred $50 million to swing states around the country to open field offices and hire campaign organizers, new spending reports show. That compares with $8 million Romney and the Republican National Committee have sent to state parties.
RNC officials said that staff numbers do not reflect their volunteer support, saying the party has made 12 million personal contacts with voters nationally and is on pace to surpass the voter-contact number of all previous Republican campaigns.
"The Obama campaign is quick to tout how many people they have on payroll, but they don't seem to be doing anything," said Rick Wiley, the RNC's political director. "It is really expensive to put field staff and offices in there. I can only imagine how much money they're burning through."
On top of its field offices, the president's campaign has invested in a more sophisticated Internet strategy than the Republicans' - creating, for example, a Web site called Dashboard where supporters can create profiles, join neighborhood canvassing teams, send event invitations and watch videos.
The Obama campaign also released a smartphone application that allows any supporter to pull up lists of nearby Democrats, who can then be targeted with appeals to vote.
Democrats say their efforts are paying off. In Nevada, they have registered 17,464 voters since January, compared with 9,747 new voters who identified themselves as Republicans, the secretary of state's office reports.
Obama's big presence in the state is the culmination of years of work building support among Latinos and other newly emerging voters, Democrats say. They point to Obama's victory in 2008 and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid's successful reelection in 2010 as proof of the benefits of grass-roots organizing.
"You can't underestimate the importance of a ground game in a state like Nevada," said Zac Petkanas, senior communications adviser to the state's Democratic Party. "We showed what it could do in 2010 against all odds, and before that in 2008."
This week, Obama urged supporters in Las Vegas to register to vote with help from Democratic staffers or through a special Web site set up by the campaign. "So that means you can grab your friends, grab your neighbors, grab your aunt, grab your uncle, cousins, and you can register," the president told a crowd.
The RNC also has created a smartphone application for canvassing and a "Social Victory Center" on Facebook, which helps volunteers make phone calls to nearby swing-state voters and record survey responses instantly.
Ed Rogers, a Republican strategist and chairman of the BGR Group, said Obama is attempting to create "synthetic, steroid-driven turnout" because the "romantic enthusiasm" he had four years ago is gone. Rogers said the resources Romney has for advertising will allow him to chip away at Obama's advantage as an incumbent.
"That's the Obama plan to win a close one - to have superior turnout mechanisms," Rogers said. "But doing that without much enthusiasm is hard."
Obama's campaign has so far remained even with Romney and his backers on television ad spending. But Republicans, with their larger bank account, are likely to dominate the airwaves in the fall.
The large Republican spending advantage in the fall may not go as far as the numbers suggest, however, because Obama has more money in his campaign bank account, while more of Romney's money is in the Republican Party's account.
That will allow the president's campaign to pay less for television rates than the RNC or super PACs - federal laws entitle campaigns to the cheapest rates. Also, candidates have complete control of the funds in their campaign coffers, but they can direct just part of the money raised for the party.
Democrats maintain that voters will tune out the messages on television once they reach a certain saturation.
"Past saturation, twice as much does not mean twice as powerful," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Kerry. "And that's especially true given Obama's truly significant advantage in the ground and turnout game."
farnamt@washpost.com
eggend@washpost.com
When President Obama campaigned in Las Vegas on Wednesday, his aides had laid the groundwork by opening 18 field offices around the city. Mitt Romney's state operation has opened three.In the critical battleground state, the Nevada Democratic Party has been building staff for two years and now has nearly 200 people organizing volunteers, knocking on doors, registering voters and compiling lists of supporters. Romney's Nevada campaign is backed up by about 40 workers.
In Ohio, another closely fought swing state, the Democratic state party employs nearly 300 people, more than the Republican National Committee in Washington, and almost four times as many as the Ohio GOP.
That gap in the candidates' ground efforts is mirrored around the country as the presidential contest heads into its final weeks, with Democratic campaign workers outnumbering Republicans nearly three to one, according to a Washington Post analysis of campaign spending reports.
The numbers reflect a fundamental difference in the way the rival campaigns are deploying resources as they battle to capture the presidency. Obama is spending earlier and investing more in his state campaign infrastructure, putting a bigger emphasis on person-to-person contact with potential voters.
Romney and Republicans are focusing more on advertising and stockpiling funds, anticipating a significant and growing money advantage in the fall. The GOP candidate and his allies - the party and independent groups - have $105 million more sitting in bank accounts than the Democrats. For the period after the conventions, they could easily outspend Democrats two to one, with most of it likely to go to more television ads."We're a little wiser in our spending of dollars than the other side, apparently," Romney told donors in Texas this week. "I'm not managing their campaign for them, but we're going to spend our money wisely. We're going to spend it to win."
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina countered that the Republicans have "already missed a year of persuasion on the ground."
"At some point, people are going to look to their friends and neighbors about what decision they're going to make," Messina said. "We think that's going to be a big chunk of how we win this thing."
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have transferred $50 million to swing states around the country to open field offices and hire campaign organizers, new spending reports show. That compares to $8 million Romney and the Republican National Committee have sent to state parties.
RNC officials said that staff numbers do not reflect their volunteer support, saying the party has made 12 million personal contacts with voters nationally and is on pace to surpass the voter-contact number of all previous Republican campaigns.
"The Obama campaign is quick to tout how many people they have on payroll, but they don't seem to be doing anything," said Rick Wiley, the RNC's political director. "It is really expensive to put field staff and offices in there. I can only imagine how much money they're burning through."
On top of its field offices, the president's campaign has invested in a more sophisticated Internet strategy than the Republicans' - creating, for example, a Web site called Dashboard where supporters can create profiles, join neighborhood canvassing teams, send event invitations and watch videos.
The Obama campaign also released a smartphone application that allows any supporter to pull up lists of nearby Democrats, who can then be targeted with appeals to vote.
Democrats say their efforts are paying off. In Nevada, they have registered 17,464 voters since January, compared to 9,747 new voters who identified themselves as Republicans, the secretary of state's office reports.
Obama's big presence in the state is the culmination of years of work building support among Latinos and other newly emerging voters, Democrats say. They point to Obama's victory in 2008 and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's successful reelection in 2010 as proof of the benefits of grass-roots organizing.
"You can't underestimate the importance of a ground game in a state like Nevada," said Zac Petkanas, senior communications adviser to the state's Democratic Party. "We showed what it could do in 2010 against all odds, and before that in 2008."
This week, Obama urged supporters in Las Vegas to register to vote with help from Democratic staffers or through a special Web site set up by the campaign. "So that means you can grab your friends, grab your neighbors, grab your aunt, grab your uncle, cousins, and you can register," the president told a crowd.
The RNC also has created a smartphone application for canvassing and a "Social Victory Center" on Facebook, which helps volunteers make phone calls to nearby swing-state voters and record survey responses instantly.
Obama enjoyed a similar advantage in field operations in 2008 against Republican presidential nominee John McCain. But in that election, Democrats had a huge funding advantage in the final months of the campaign after Obama opted out of public financing and the spending cap that accompanies it.
Ed Rogers, a Republican strategist and chairman of the BGR Group, said Obama is attempting to create "synthetic, steroid-driven turnout" because the "romantic enthusiasm" he had four years ago is gone. Rogers said the resources Romney has for advertising will allow him to chip away at Obama's advantage as an incumbent.
"That's the Obama plan to win a close one - to have superior turnout mechanisms," Rogers said. "But doing that without much enthusiasm is hard."
Obama's campaign has so far remained even with Romney and his backers on television ad spending. But Republicans, with their larger bank account, are likely to dominate the airwaves in the fall.
The large Republican spending advantage in the fall may not go as far as the numbers suggest, however, because Obama has more money in his campaign bank account, while more of Romney's money is the Republican party's account.
That will allow the president's campaign to pay less for television rates than the RNC or super PACS - federal laws entitle campaigns to the cheapest rates. Also, candidates have complete control of the funds in their campaign coffers, but they can direct just part of the money raised for the party.
Democrats maintain that voters will tune out the messages on television once they reach a certain saturation.
"Past saturation, twice as much does not mean twice as powerful," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). "And that's especially true given Obama's truly significant advantage in the ground and turnout game."
farnamt@washpost.com
eggend@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1173 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 24, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Romney team tries to make pitch-perfect ads
BYLINE: Philip Rucker
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1343 words
BOSTON - Now that Mitt Romney has amassed a couple hundred million dollars, it's largely up to an eclectic crew of self-described "Mad Men" to make good use of it.
A colorful team of advertising gurus - including a onetime "Wheel of Fortune" contestant, a guy nicknamed for a "Super Mario" character and a burly Texan who came up with the "Beef, it's what's for dinner" slogan - have converged on the campaign's drab headquarters here to dream up the ads they hope will propel Romney to the White House.
Together, they clock 12-to-14-hour days in their shared offices and try to apply what they've learned in careers marketing Colgate toothpaste, Big Macs, BMWs and Nationwide Insurance to help pitch to the American masses a product that lacks a dominant market share: Mitt Romney.
"It's like a foxhole," said Vinny Minchillo, the game-show contestant who made ads for brands such as J.C. Penney and Subaru before going into politics 10 years ago. "Normally these two worlds just don't see eye to eye. But in this case, people who believe in the cause have come up here to Boston and said, 'You know what? We're going to try to do some great creative work here.' "
Much of the money that Romney raises falls into the hands of the Mad Men, who already have cut spots and laid plans to blanket the airwaves in battleground states throughout the final 10-week sprint. Romney can raise all the millions there are to raise, but if his ad wizards don't make compelling and persuasive ads, it won't do him much good.
"We can keep throwing ads up there all day long, but is there an idea that's really going to touch people? It's going to get them to pull that handle, and we're going to win," said Jim "Fergie" Ferguson, the Texan.
The creative team is trying to create an emotional bond between a candidate who reveals little emotion and a still-unsure body politic. And they are trying to tell the story of "the Obama economy" - searching what one of them dubbed "the trail of tears" for powerful voices among the roughly 23 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed or have stopped looking for work.
One day this past winter, Ferguson came across a news story about an Iowan who lost his job at a grain elevator and became a part-time gravedigger. Ferguson drove around for days in a snowstorm until a mortician in Waterloo connected him with Troy Knapp.
After filming Knapp talking about the shame of being on unemployment, Ferguson recalled, "I cried." Ferguson made Knapp and two other struggling Iowans the focus of a Romney video, "A Few of the 23 Million." "A lot of people around here, when Barack, you know, was running and all that, everyone believed, everyone had hope," Knapp says in the video. "They all thought, 'Man, this guy's going to get something done.' When he is in office now, it just seems like nothing's getting done."
Steering the massive ad campaign are Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer, Romney's top strategists, as well as Ashley O'Connor, the campaign's director of advertising. They're hoping that the handful of corporate advertising stars can do for Romney what they do so well for consumer products: shape, sharpen and simplify the pitch.
"All the political advertising I look at, it's trying to shove 10 pounds of [junk] in a two-pound bag. They shove it in there. They say, 'Hey, we've got two more seconds. We can breathe another fact into it.' " Ferguson said. Instead, he said, he wants Romney's ads to "get that one simple idea out there - and it is what Stuart says, 'It's the economy, and we're not stupid.' "
Past presidential campaigns have tried fusing Madison Avenue and Beltway talent with mixed results. Ronald Reagan had success in 1984 with his "Tuesday Team," but Michael Dukakis's group struggled in 1988. In 2000, George W. Bush had the "Park Avenue Posse," but there were divisions between the Austin and New York cliques.
Romney hopes that by bringing most of his team to Boston, with four high-quality video production rooms and a massive internal archive of Romney footage, he can find a synergy that eluded earlier campaigns - including his own 2008 bid.
What exactly goes on in those rooms remains something of a mystery - the Mad Men weren't interested in letting a reporter in to watch their creative process unfold, and they were unwilling to preview upcoming ads.
O'Connor contributes many ideas and serves as the no-nonsense disciplinarian for the growing team of healthy egos and eclectic personalities.
"There are different styles to manage, different egos to manage, and hats off to Ashley and Stuart for getting us to work together so smoothly," said Minchillo, whose family is back in Dallas.
Among O'Connor's disciples is Ferguson, who earlier in his career came up with a novel, and now famous, way to market beef - "It's what's for dinner."
Ferguson cuts a conspicuous figure at Romney headquarters, with straggly white hair, a pack of Parliament cigarettes and several decidedly un-Romney-like tattoos: a cyclone on his ring finger (a reminder, after his divorce, never to marry again), a dollar sign on a wrist and the words "to do" on an ankle, so when he crosses his legs he can write on his ankle what he needs to do that day.
There's also Minchillo, who boasts on his rsum that he races lawn mowers; Keith Salmon, regarded as a master storyteller who left a career in Los Angles; and Bruce Van Dusen, a Madison Avenue director whose calming yet authoritative voice narrates most of Romney's general-election ads.
There's also James Dalthorp, the son of an FBI agent, who made a name for himself marketing luxury auto brands such as Lexus and BMW ("The ultimate driving machine"). And Tom Messner, a onetime letter carrier who, before going corporate, was a core member of Reagan's "Tuesday Team" and helped create the memorable "Morning in America" ad.
There are other campaign veterans, too, including Bob Wickers, who oversaw Mike Huckabee's ads in his 2008 presidential campaign, and Harold Kaplan, who has been on Romney's ad team for years. Romney also has a handful of young filmmakers on board, including Tim O'Toole, Matthew Taylor, Dain Valverde and Clare Burns. George W. Bush nicknamed Taylor "Yoshi" during the 2004 campaign because he was like Nintendo's "Super Mario World" character shuttling between the White House, a studio on K Street and campaign headquarters.
For the Madison Avenue set, used to devising and then executing long-range plans, the campaign has been an adjustment.
"It's not like rolling out a car," O'Connor said. "You're rolling out a car, and somebody's commenting on your features and somebody else is talking about how your tires aren't right."
So far, some political observers have criticized Romney's ads for being too muddled. He entered the general-election phase this summer not with biographical spots introducing himself but with a series of "Day One" ads. They offered a straightforward look at what a President Romney would do at the start of his term: Repeal "Obamacare," build the Keystone XL pipeline, get tough on China and create jobs.
The Web videos that Romney's campaign blasts out almost daily are a hodgepodge of heart-racing attacks on Obama and homespun trips down memory lane with Romney's wife and sons. Many of the latter were filmed with a floating camera in Burns's office, where she has pinned scores of Romney family photos on a bulletin board - some staffers playfully dubbed it her "stalker board."
Then there are emotional documentaries about entrepreneurs who built small businesses or everyday Americans struggling to make ends meet. Romney's advisers said stories from the "trail of tears" will remain a common thread through the election.
Americans have been digesting economic data since the financial collapse of 2008, and the Romney team thinks they can make those numbers resonate with independent voters by putting stories behind the statistics.
"You just listen and weave stories together," O'Connor said. "If I were Obama, I'd be terrified of these people telling their stories."
ruckerp@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1174 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 24, 2012 Friday 2:46 PM EST
What 'War on Women?' Gender gap on par with history;
Data show the gender gap is no more pronounced than it has been in any recent presidential election, despite Democrats' emphasis on women.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 953 words
Democrats think women are President Obama's ticket to reelection - especially after a series of controversies over contraception and, most recently, GOP Rep. Todd Akin's comments about "legitimate rape."
And sure enough, poll after poll shows women prefer the president by a pretty significant clip.A new Gallup poll shows him leading Mitt Romney 50 percent to 42 percent, while a newUSC/Los Angeles Times poll shows him up 51 percent to 43 percent.
But, in context, that's actually pretty normal.
In fact, at this point, there's little reason to believe that Romney is struggling much more among women than other recent Republican presidential candidates. Relative to his overall performance, it's about par for the course.
Gallup shows Romney performing eight points worse among women than men, while the USC/LAT poll shows him performing five points worse with the fairer sex. And new swing state polls from Quinnipiac University, CBS News and the New York Times show him performing between seven and 10 points worse among women than men in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.
And all of those numbers are well within the norm, when it comes to recent presidential elections.
According to data from the Rutgers Center for the American Women and Politics, the last four GOP presidential nominees all performed between five and 10 points worse among women than men nationally. George W. Bush, for instance, took 43 percent of the female vote in his first win in 2000 - similar to where Romney is right now, even with some voters undecided. (Bush notably lost the popular vote narrowly, despite his electoral vote win.)
Republicans also performed seven points worse among women than among men in the 2010 midterm elections, when they made huge gains. In fact, they barely carried the female vote, period.
Much of the so-called "gender gap" is simply the natural order of American politics; women favor Democrats more, while men are closer to the GOP. Even as Republicans might struggle among women, they can make up for it by winning men by a bigger margin.
The good news for Democrats, though, is that women turn out at higher rates than men, so whatever advantage Obama has among women is more advantageous than if Romney leads by the same margin among men. (The Gallup poll, notably, shows Romney leading by the same 50-42 count among men that Obama leads by among women.)
Democrats are rolling out a slate of women to speak at the Democratic National Convention in two weeks, and they expect plenty of focus on women's rights as the Akin saga continues to roll along.The Obama campaign said Thursday that "Hurricane Todd has already borne down on Tampa."
Both parties will cater to women voters because, frankly, they represent more than half of the electorate. And Democrats hope to expand their lead among women with things like the Akin controversy.
But as of now, whatever liabilities Romney has, history suggests his performance among women isn't quite at the top of the list.
Akin spokesman says he's not reevaluating: A spokesman for Akin's Senate campaign said the congressman is not considering dropping out of the Missouri Senate race.
Reports Thursday indicated that Akin was discussing whether to stay in the race with fellow attendees at the secretive Council for National Policy in Tampa.
Spokesman Ryan Hite told The Fix that's not the case, though: "The congressman is not re-evaluating; he is determined and confident as he stated multiple times earlier this week. He is committed to staying in this race."
Romney writes Bain op-ed: Romney took to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal on Friday to defend his record at Bain Capital.
In the column, Romney points to success stories at Bain.
"A broad message emerges from my Bain Capital days: A good idea is not enough for a business to succeed. It requires a talented team, a good business plan and capital to execute it," he wrote. "That was true of companies we helped start, like Staples and the Bright Horizons child-care provider, and several of the struggling companies we helped turn around, like the Brookstone retailer and the contact-lens maker Wesley Jessen."
It's apparent that Romney is attempting to turn Bain into a feather in his economic cap in advance of next week's Republican National Convention, where the GOP's ability to fix the economy is likely to be the key message.
"I know what it takes to turn around difficult situations," Romney wrote. "And I will put that experience to work, to get our economy back on track, create jobs, strengthen the middle class and lay the groundwork for America's increased competitiveness in the world."
Democrats have attempted to make both Romney's time at Bain and his governance of Massachusetts into liabilities, pointing to layoffs and outsourcing by Bain and the economy in Massachusetts.
Fixbits:
Akin's top strategist talks to the Wall Street Journal.
Capitol Police are investigating a threat against Akin.
The new USC Annenberg/Los Angeles Times national poll shows Obama leading Romney 48 percent to 45 percent.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is up with a new ad featuring the endorsement of a decorated Korean war veteran.
Must-reads:
"Obama campaign is depending on a strong ground game against Romney" - T.W. Farnam and Dan Eggen, Washington Post
"Mitt Romney says plan will achieve North American energy independence by 2020" - Philip Rucker, Washington Post
"Democrats hoping that Akins rape remark will reverberate outside Missouri" - Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post
"Bain documents reveal tax and offshore details" - Tom Hamburger and Brady Dennis, Washington Post
"No Ron Paul revolution at convention" - James Hohmann, Politico
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1175 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 24, 2012 Friday
Suburban Edition
Obama's campaign strategy emphasizes feet on ground
BYLINE: T.W. Farnam;Dan Eggen
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 2362 words
When President Obama campaigned in Las Vegas on Wednesday, his aides had laid the groundwork by opening 18 field offices around the city. Mitt Romney's state operation has opened three.
In the critical battleground state, the Nevada Democratic Party has been building staff for two years and now has nearly 200 people organizing volunteers, knocking on doors, registering voters and compiling lists of supporters. Romney's Nevada campaign is backed up by about 40 workers.
In Ohio, another closely fought swing state, the Democratic state party employs nearly 300 people - more than the Republican National Committee in Washington and almost four times as many as the Ohio GOP.
That gap in the candidates' ground efforts is mirrored around the country as the presidential contest heads into its final weeks, with Democratic campaign workers outnumbering Republicans nearly three to one, according to a Washington Post analysis of campaign spending reports.
The numbers reflect a fundamental difference in the way the rival campaigns are deploying resources as they battle to capture the presidency. Obama is spending earlier and investing more in his state campaign infrastructure, putting a bigger emphasis on person-to-person contact with potential voters.
Romney and Republicans are focusing more on advertising and stockpiling funds, anticipating a significant and growing money advantage in the fall. The GOP candidate and his allies - the party and independent groups - have $105 million more sitting in bank accounts than the Democrats. For the period after the conventions, they could easily outspend Democrats two to one, with most of it likely to go to more television ads.
"We're a little wiser in our spending of dollars than the other side, apparently," Romney told donors in Texas this week. "I'm not managing their campaign for them, but we're going to spend our money wisely. We're going to spend it to win."
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina countered that the Republicans have "already missed a year of persuasion on the ground."
"At some point, people are going to look to their friends and neighbors about what decision they're going to make," Messina said. "We think that's going to be a big chunk of how we win this thing."
An aggressive ground game was a hallmark of Obama's resounding 2008 victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). But four years earlier, Republicans were viewed as having a superior grass-roots effort for George W. Bush's reelection campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who outsourced much of the work to allied interest groups and unions.
Democrats have traditionally benefited more from on-the-ground organizing by unions, which tend to favor person-to-person contact with their members. In recent elections, most large Republican interest groups have spent money exclusively on television commercials.
The personal contacts, however, do not ensure victory. Democrats promoted their bigger operation in the recall election of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) this year, but Republicans outspent Democrats overall and Walker won by seven percentage points. Before the loss, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called that race "the dry run that we need of our massive, significant, dynamic grass-roots presidential campaign."
In this election, the Obama campaign and the DNC have transferred $50 million to swing states around the country to open field offices and hire campaign organizers, new spending reports show. That compares with $8 million Romney and the Republican National Committee have sent to state parties.
RNC officials said that staff numbers do not reflect their volunteer support, saying the party has made 12 million personal contacts with voters nationally and is on pace to surpass the voter-contact number of all previous Republican campaigns.
"The Obama campaign is quick to tout how many people they have on payroll, but they don't seem to be doing anything," said Rick Wiley, the RNC's political director. "It is really expensive to put field staff and offices in there. I can only imagine how much money they're burning through."
On top of its field offices, the president's campaign has invested in a more sophisticated Internet strategy than the Republicans' - creating, for example, a Web site called Dashboard where supporters can create profiles, join neighborhood canvassing teams, send event invitations and watch videos.
The Obama campaign also released a smartphone application that allows any supporter to pull up lists of nearby Democrats, who can then be targeted with appeals to vote.
Democrats say their efforts are paying off. In Nevada, they have registered 17,464 voters since January, compared with 9,747 new voters who identified themselves as Republicans, the secretary of state's office reports.
Obama's big presence in the state is the culmination of years of work building support among Latinos and other newly emerging voters, Democrats say. They point to Obama's victory in 2008 and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid's successful reelection in 2010 as proof of the benefits of grass-roots organizing.
"You can't underestimate the importance of a ground game in a state like Nevada," said Zac Petkanas, senior communications adviser to the state's Democratic Party. "We showed what it could do in 2010 against all odds, and before that in 2008."
This week, Obama urged supporters in Las Vegas to register to vote with help from Democratic staffers or through a special Web site set up by the campaign. "So that means you can grab your friends, grab your neighbors, grab your aunt, grab your uncle, cousins, and you can register," the president told a crowd.
The RNC also has created a smartphone application for canvassing and a "Social Victory Center" on Facebook, which helps volunteers make phone calls to nearby swing-state voters and record survey responses instantly.
Ed Rogers, a Republican strategist and chairman of the BGR Group, said Obama is attempting to create "synthetic, steroid-driven turnout" because the "romantic enthusiasm" he had four years ago is gone. Rogers said the resources Romney has for advertising will allow him to chip away at Obama's advantage as an incumbent.
"That's the Obama plan to win a close one - to have superior turnout mechanisms," Rogers said. "But doing that without much enthusiasm is hard."
Obama's campaign has so far remained even with Romney and his backers on television ad spending. But Republicans, with their larger bank account, are likely to dominate the airwaves in the fall.
The large Republican spending advantage in the fall may not go as far as the numbers suggest, however, because Obama has more money in his campaign bank account, while more of Romney's money is in the Republican Party's account.
That will allow the president's campaign to pay less for television rates than the RNC or super PACs - federal laws entitle campaigns to the cheapest rates. Also, candidates have complete control of the funds in their campaign coffers, but they can direct just part of the money raised for the party.
Democrats maintain that voters will tune out the messages on television once they reach a certain saturation.
"Past saturation, twice as much does not mean twice as powerful," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Kerry. "And that's especially true given Obama's truly significant advantage in the ground and turnout game."
farnamt@washpost.com
eggend@washpost.com
When President Obama campaigned in Las Vegas on Wednesday, his aides had laid the groundwork by opening 18 field offices around the city. Mitt Romney's state operation has opened three.
In the critical battleground state, the Nevada Democratic Party has been building staff for two years and now has nearly 200 people organizing volunteers, knocking on doors, registering voters and compiling lists of supporters. Romney's Nevada campaign is backed up by about 40 workers.
In Ohio, another closely fought swing state, the Democratic state party employs nearly 300 people, more than the Republican National Committee in Washington, and almost four times as many as the Ohio GOP.
That gap in the candidates' ground efforts is mirrored around the country as the presidential contest heads into its final weeks, with Democratic campaign workers outnumbering Republicans nearly three to one, according to a Washington Post analysis of campaign spending reports.
The numbers reflect a fundamental difference in the way the rival campaigns are deploying resources as they battle to capture the presidency. Obama is spending earlier and investing more in his state campaign infrastructure, putting a bigger emphasis on person-to-person contact with potential voters.
Romney and Republicans are focusing more on advertising and stockpiling funds, anticipating a significant and growing money advantage in the fall. The GOP candidate and his allies - the party and independent groups - have $105 million more sitting in bank accounts than the Democrats. For the period after the conventions, they could easily outspend Democrats two to one, with most of it likely to go to more television ads.
"We're a little wiser in our spending of dollars than the other side, apparently," Romney told donors in Texas this week. "I'm not managing their campaign for them, but we're going to spend our money wisely. We're going to spend it to win."
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina countered that the Republicans have "already missed a year of persuasion on the ground."
"At some point, people are going to look to their friends and neighbors about what decision they're going to make," Messina said. "We think that's going to be a big chunk of how we win this thing."
The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have transferred $50 million to swing states around the country to open field offices and hire campaign organizers, new spending reports show. That compares to $8 million Romney and the Republican National Committee have sent to state parties.
RNC officials said that staff numbers do not reflect their volunteer support, saying the party has made 12 million personal contacts with voters nationally and is on pace to surpass the voter-contact number of all previous Republican campaigns.
"The Obama campaign is quick to tout how many people they have on payroll, but they don't seem to be doing anything," said Rick Wiley, the RNC's political director. "It is really expensive to put field staff and offices in there. I can only imagine how much money they're burning through."
On top of its field offices, the president's campaign has invested in a more sophisticated Internet strategy than the Republicans' - creating, for example, a Web site called Dashboard where supporters can create profiles, join neighborhood canvassing teams, send event invitations and watch videos.
The Obama campaign also released a smartphone application that allows any supporter to pull up lists of nearby Democrats, who can then be targeted with appeals to vote.
Democrats say their efforts are paying off. In Nevada, they have registered 17,464 voters since January, compared to 9,747 new voters who identified themselves as Republicans, the secretary of state's office reports.
Obama's big presence in the state is the culmination of years of work building support among Latinos and other newly emerging voters, Democrats say. They point to Obama's victory in 2008 and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's successful reelection in 2010 as proof of the benefits of grass-roots organizing.
"You can't underestimate the importance of a ground game in a state like Nevada," said Zac Petkanas, senior communications adviser to the state's Democratic Party. "We showed what it could do in 2010 against all odds, and before that in 2008."
This week, Obama urged supporters in Las Vegas to register to vote with help from Democratic staffers or through a special Web site set up by the campaign. "So that means you can grab your friends, grab your neighbors, grab your aunt, grab your uncle, cousins, and you can register," the president told a crowd.
The RNC also has created a smartphone application for canvassing and a "Social Victory Center" on Facebook, which helps volunteers make phone calls to nearby swing-state voters and record survey responses instantly.
Obama enjoyed a similar advantage in field operations in 2008 against Republican presidential nominee John McCain. But in that election, Democrats had a huge funding advantage in the final months of the campaign after Obama opted out of public financing and the spending cap that accompanies it.
Ed Rogers, a Republican strategist and chairman of the BGR Group, said Obama is attempting to create "synthetic, steroid-driven turnout" because the "romantic enthusiasm" he had four years ago is gone. Rogers said the resources Romney has for advertising will allow him to chip away at Obama's advantage as an incumbent.
"That's the Obama plan to win a close one - to have superior turnout mechanisms," Rogers said. "But doing that without much enthusiasm is hard."
Obama's campaign has so far remained even with Romney and his backers on television ad spending. But Republicans, with their larger bank account, are likely to dominate the airwaves in the fall.
The large Republican spending advantage in the fall may not go as far as the numbers suggest, however, because Obama has more money in his campaign bank account, while more of Romney's money is the Republican party's account.
That will allow the president's campaign to pay less for television rates than the RNC or super PACS - federal laws entitle campaigns to the cheapest rates. Also, candidates have complete control of the funds in their campaign coffers, but they can direct just part of the money raised for the party.
Democrats maintain that voters will tune out the messages on television once they reach a certain saturation.
"Past saturation, twice as much does not mean twice as powerful," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). "And that's especially true given Obama's truly significant advantage in the ground and turnout game."
farnamt@washpost.com
eggend@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1176 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 24, 2012 Friday
Met 2 Edition
Romney team tries to make pitch-perfect ads
BYLINE: Philip Rucker
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1339 words
DATELINE: BOSTON
BOSTON - Now that Mitt Romney has amassed a couple hundred million dollars, it's largely up to an eclectic crew of self-described "Mad Men" to make good use of it.
A colorful team of advertising gurus - including a onetime "Wheel of Fortune" contestant, a guy nicknamed for a "Super Mario" character and a burly Texan who came up with the "Beef, it's what's for dinner" slogan - have converged on the campaign's drab headquarters here to dream up the ads they hope will propel Romney to the White House.
Together, they clock 12-to-14-hour days in their shared offices and try to apply what they've learned in careers marketing Colgate toothpaste, Big Macs, BMWs and Nationwide Insurance to help pitch to the American masses a product that lacks a dominant market share: Mitt Romney.
"It's like a foxhole," said Vinny Minchillo, the game-show contestant who made ads for brands such as J.C. Penney and Subaru before going into politics 10 years ago. "Normally these two worlds just don't see eye to eye. But in this case, people who believe in the cause have come up here to Boston and said, 'You know what? We're going to try to do some great creative work here.' "
Much of the money that Romney raises falls into the hands of the Mad Men, who already have cut spots and laid plans to blanket the airwaves in battleground states throughout the final 10-week sprint. Romney can raise all the millions there are to raise, but if his ad wizards don't make compelling and persuasive ads, it won't do him much good.
"We can keep throwing ads up there all day long, but is there an idea that's really going to touch people? It's going to get them to pull that handle, and we're going to win," said Jim "Fergie" Ferguson, the Texan.
The creative team is trying to create an emotional bond between a candidate who reveals little emotion and a still-unsure body politic. And they are trying to tell the story of "the Obama economy" - searching what one of them dubbed "the trail of tears" for powerful voices among the roughly 23 million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed or have stopped looking for work.
One day this past winter, Ferguson came across a news story about an Iowan who lost his job at a grain elevator and became a part-time gravedigger. Ferguson drove around for days in a snowstorm until a mortician in Waterloo connected him with Troy Knapp.
After filming Knapp talking about the shame of being on unemployment, Ferguson recalled, "I cried." Ferguson made Knapp and two other struggling Iowans the focus of a Romney video, "A Few of the 23 Million."
"A lot of people around here, when Barack, you know, was running and all that, everyone believed, everyone had hope," Knapp says in the video. "They all thought, 'Man, this guy's going to get something done.' When he is in office now, it just seems like nothing's getting done."
Steering the massive ad campaign are Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer, Romney's top strategists, as well as Ashley O'Connor, the campaign's director of advertising. They're hoping that the handful of corporate advertising stars can do for Romney what they do so well for consumer products: shape, sharpen and simplify the pitch.
"All the political advertising I look at, it's trying to shove 10 pounds of [junk] in a two-pound bag. They shove it in there. They say, 'Hey, we've got two more seconds. We can breathe another fact into it.' " Ferguson said. Instead, he said, he wants Romney's ads to "get that one simple idea out there - and it is what Stuart says, 'It's the economy, and we're not stupid.' "
Past presidential campaigns have tried fusing Madison Avenue and Beltway talent with mixed results. Ronald Reagan had success in 1984 with his "Tuesday Team," but Michael Dukakis's group struggled in 1988. In 2000, George W. Bush had the "Park Avenue Posse," but there were divisions between the Austin and New York cliques.
Romney hopes that by bringing most of his team to Boston, with four high-quality video production rooms and a massive internal archive of Romney footage, he can find a synergy that eluded earlier campaigns - including his own 2008 bid.
What exactly goes on in those rooms remains something of a mystery - the Mad Men weren't interested in letting a reporter in to watch their creative process unfold, and they were unwilling to preview upcoming ads.
O'Connor contributes many ideas and serves as the no-nonsense disciplinarian for the growing team of healthy egos and eclectic personalities.
"There are different styles to manage, different egos to manage, and hats off to Ashley and Stuart for getting us to work together so smoothly," said Minchillo, whose family is back in Dallas.
Among O'Connor's disciples is Ferguson, who earlier in his career came up with a novel, and now famous, way to market beef - "It's what's for dinner."
Ferguson cuts a conspicuous figure at Romney headquarters, with straggly white hair, a pack of Parliament cigarettes and several decidedly un-Romney-like tattoos: a cyclone on his ring finger (a reminder, after his divorce, never to marry again), a dollar sign on a wrist and the words "to do" on an ankle, so when he crosses his legs he can write on his ankle what he needs to do that day.
There's also Minchillo, who boasts on his rsum that he races lawn mowers; Keith Salmon, regarded as a master storyteller who left a career in Los Angles; and Bruce Van Dusen, a Madison Avenue director whose calming yet authoritative voice narrates most of Romney's general-election ads.
There's also James Dalthorp, the son of an FBI agent, who made a name for himself marketing luxury auto brands such as Lexus and BMW ("The ultimate driving machine"). And Tom Messner, a onetime letter carrier who, before going corporate, was a core member of Reagan's "Tuesday Team" and helped create the memorable "Morning in America" ad.
There are other campaign veterans, too, including Bob Wickers, who oversaw Mike Huckabee's ads in his 2008 presidential campaign, and Harold Kaplan, who has been on Romney's ad team for years. Romney also has a handful of young filmmakers on board, including Tim O'Toole, Matthew Taylor, Dain Valverde and Clare Burns. George W. Bush nicknamed Taylor "Yoshi" during the 2004 campaign because he was like Nintendo's "Super Mario World" character shuttling between the White House, a studio on K Street and campaign headquarters.
For the Madison Avenue set, used to devising and then executing long-range plans, the campaign has been an adjustment.
"It's not like rolling out a car," O'Connor said. "You're rolling out a car, and somebody's commenting on your features and somebody else is talking about how your tires aren't right."
So far, some political observers have criticized Romney's ads for being too muddled. He entered the general-election phase this summer not with biographical spots introducing himself but with a series of "Day One" ads. They offered a straightforward look at what a President Romney would do at the start of his term: Repeal "Obamacare," build the Keystone XL pipeline, get tough on China and create jobs.
The Web videos that Romney's campaign blasts out almost daily are a hodgepodge of heart-racing attacks on Obama and homespun trips down memory lane with Romney's wife and sons. Many of the latter were filmed with a floating camera in Burns's office, where she has pinned scores of Romney family photos on a bulletin board - some staffers playfully dubbed it her "stalker board."
Then there are emotional documentaries about entrepreneurs who built small businesses or everyday Americans struggling to make ends meet. Romney's advisers said stories from the "trail of tears" will remain a common thread through the election.
Americans have been digesting economic data since the financial collapse of 2008, and the Romney team thinks they can make those numbers resonate with independent voters by putting stories behind the statistics.
"You just listen and weave stories together," O'Connor said. "If I were Obama, I'd be terrified of these people telling their stories."
ruckerp@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1177 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 23, 2012 Thursday
Clinton Appeals to Voters in New Obama Ad
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 371 words
HIGHLIGHT: A new Obama campaign ad features former President Bill Clinton speaking directly to the camera.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly sought to contrast President Obama with former President Bill Clinton, arguing that Mr. Obama has abandoned his Democratic predecessor's focus on moderate politics and middle-class voters.
In recent ads, Mr. Romney has highlighted the success of Mr. Clinton's welfare overhaul and has argued - falsely, according to most independent fact-checkers - that Mr. Obama is trying to gut those reforms.
Now, Mr. Obama's campaign has released a new television ad featuring Mr. Clinton speaking directly to the camera and challenging Mr. Romney's assertions.
"President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up, investing in innovation, education and job training. It only works if there is a strong middle class," Mr. Clinton says in the ad. "That's what happened when I was president. We need to keep going with his plan."
Few political ads are more powerful than ones in which the politician talks directly to the camera - and to voters - without the distraction of video effects or fast-paced scenes.
Mr. Obama's campaign has already produced several ads like that, hoping to make use of what polls suggest is the president's personal appeal to many voters.
In the new ad, Mr. Clinton argues that the coming presidential contest is a "clear choice" between the two candidates.
"This election to me is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment," Mr. Clinton says. "The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper income people and go back to deregulation. That's what got us in trouble in the first place."
Mr. Obama's campaign said the ad would be broadcast in eight battleground states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
A spokeswoman for the Romney campaign, Amanda Henneberg, said in an e-mail that Mr. Romney's private-sector experience and his plan to strengthen the middle class "offer a new direction."
"He will jump-start economic growth, creating 12 million jobs and bringing hope to the middle class," Ms. Henneberg said.
Brown Takes Slap at Ad, and Bill Clinton
The Hill-Bill Appeal
Round 2 in Wisconsin: Obama Smacks Back
The Early Word: Democrats Gain Seats at State Level
In New Ads, Republicans Attack Over Medicare
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1178 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 23, 2012 Thursday
FINAL EDITION
CONVENTIONS GONE WILD;
As the parties fly into Tampa and Charlotte, a tweet of caution: The well-scripted gatherings are just 140 characters away from chaos
BYLINE: Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 1289 words
Modern political conventions long ago lost the drama of actually choosing a presidential nominee. Instead, they are tightly scripted, expertly staged and timed to the minute to hammer home the message of the party and its candidate.
So what would be the most anarchic, chaotic thing that could occur in Tampa and Charlotte, where the Republicans and Democrats are preparing to gather? How about equipping everyone -- delegates, elected officials, surrogates, media drones and opposition operatives -- with a way to comment very publicly on anything at any time, whether it conforms to the talking points or not?
Welcome to the #conventions. Tweet at will.
Twitter was just taking root when the two political parties convened four years ago. This year, it is in full flower. Candidates and political parties will have squads of workers feeding social media sites and will encourage convention delegates to tweet with prearranged hashtags #GOP2012 and #DNC2012. Political journalists will be tweeting everything they see inside and outside the hall. TV viewers watching the prime-time speakers will tweet their reactions -- pro, con, excited, inspired, outraged, bored -- just as they did during the recent Olympics.
Spontaneous tweeting is the "antithesis" of political conventions, says Dan Schnur, who was communications director for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. "Conventions are about singing from the same hymnbook. Twitter means everybody has their own song.''
Conventions are "rumor factories," says Tad Devine, a Democratic political strategist who wrangled delegates at many conventions. "Having the ability to electronically send rumors out to tens of thousands of people I find to be a very disturbing development. If anything happens off script, Twitter could be very dangerous."
But convention organizers have embraced Twitter. They plan to make all forms of social media an integral part of the proceedings as an attempt to involve and excite supporters back home. The 2010 midterm elections provided both political parties with plenty of practice at incorporating Twitter into campaigns, despite its volatility.
"I think they're getting quite comfortable with this kind of war-room politics unfolding on Twitter," says Twitter corporate spokeswoman Rachael Horwitz, who cited Obama top strategist David Axelrod as an aggressive tweeter. When a candidate's gaffe is pinging around the Twitterverse, they're not caught "off guard," she says: They immediately launch rebuttals in an effort to minimize the discussion before it leaps to television or online news sites.
Romney digital director Zac Moffatt says the campaign knows better than to try to control the Twitter stream.
"You can no longer control the message; you can only try to shape the dialogue," Moffatt says. When the Twitterverse gets cranked up about a subject, "I think that's the fun part, but it is scary."
Members of both parties have tweeted their way into trouble nonetheless.
For instance, earlier this month several Republican members of Congress had to delete congratulatory tweets about Romney picking Paul Ryan as his running mate because they may have violated congressional rules about using official Twitter accounts for campaigning. But the tweets were captured by a non-partisan watchdog group called the Sunlight Foundation, which has started a website called "Politwoops" that tracks politicians' deleted tweets.
After the Supreme Court's ruling in June that upheld the Obama administration's health care law, Democratic National Committee Executive Director Patrick Gaspard tweeted: "It's constitutional. Bitches." And then he had to follow with an apologetic tweet saying his excitement had gotten the better of him.
That's why the possibilities of a twip-up at the convention are so great, says Thomas Whalen, a Boston University political scientist. "Someone or some people will be off the reservation," he says, adding hopefully, "Maybe we'll get some tweets where people actually honest-to-God state their opinions about the nominees. When did we get that in the last 30 years?"
From TV to a tweet
The television audience watching the prime-time coverage of the conventions is likely to be tweeting as well. As the Olympics showed, tweeting while watching is the new couch sport -- even if people know the outcome of the contest before the broadcast begins. "Politics is less about the unknown outcome and way more about the human drama, and the gaffes and the standout moments," Horwitz says. "People know more and more that that sort of story breaks on Twitter."
The result, however, will likely be a stream of partisan sniping, says computer scientist Filippo Menczer, a principal investigator for Truthy, the Indiana University computing project that analyzes the Twitter stream to find out how widely messages are shared and dispersed.
In political topics on Twitter, "there is no direct communication," he says. "People tend to retweet only things they agree with."
The megaphone that is Twitter can bring fame as well as infamy.
"It does increase the possibility that someone is either going to slip up -- or become a major star," says Lee Brenner, a co-host of the satellite radio show Politics Powered By Twitter. "Knowing what Twitter is, the controversial statements will be more prominent. If someone that you otherwise would not have heard of says something about Obama and socialism that's going to go around Twitter pretty quickly."
The parties are clearly hoping there will be more positive on-message tweets than otherwise. That's where Twitter can be helpful in mobilizing a base of support, Schnur says -- particularly relevant in a close presidential campaign that may end up being about which campaign can turn out more of its voters.
"They might not deliver the message exactly the way the party wants it delivered, but if they are enthusiastic about what they're seeing and hearing, they can get that out to their followers even more effectively than the candidates," Schnur says.
If the Twitter mix is more negative than positive for one of the conventions or candidates, the only strategy for the parties and campaigns is to tweet more, says Daniel Kreiss, a University of North Carolina political scientist who has written a book about the development of social media and campaigns.
"You stay on message. You have a set of things to say and you have a set of information that you put out there," Kreiss says. "The only other option is not to have any social media at all."
Tweet-bots and illusions
Of course, some people try to cheat. Truthy, the Indiana University project, discovered that during the 2010 campaign, fake automated Twitter accounts called "bots" tweeted and then retweeted each other, to give the appearance of widespread grass-roots support.
"People are still a little bit more nave about social media than they are TV," Menczer says.
Viewers know a political ad is expensive to run on TV, so they realize there's an organization behind it with something to gain and "they're a little skeptical," Menczer says. "On social media, they think it comes from people just like them. So they may tend to believe it a little more."
That might not last long. These political conventions are taking place in the interval between Twitter's arrival and the time when political campaigns learn to exploit it fully -- sort of like the days when conventions were televised, but hadn't evolved into multinight infomercials.
"This happens when new technologies are introduced. Once you figure it out, you grab hold of it and you control it. We're in this transitional period, this cycle where people don't know how to control it," says Boston University's Whalen. "So it's mysterious and exciting at the same time."
LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: COVER STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1179 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 23, 2012 Thursday 10:20 PM EST
Mike Huckabee vouches for Todd Akin;
The former Arkansas governor is in Akin's corner even if the rest of the GOP isn't.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 712 words
Updated at 6:05 p.m. with more from Ralph Reed
Mike Huckabee vouches for Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.),CrossroadsGPS spends $4 million more on Senate races and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has a laugh.
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Why the none of these candidates option matters in Nevada (and why it doesnt)
Bidens (kind of) unprecedented party-crashing mission in Tampa
The many faces of political independents
Who are the swing voters? Theyre not just independents.
Who is standing by Todd Akin?
Be a part of the Fixs Convention Google+ Hangouts
Bill Clinton makes pitch for Obama in new ad
Romneys slight swing-state surge
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee gave embattled Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) some backup, sending an email to supporters saying he "was shocked by GOP leaders and elected officials who rushed so quickly to end the political life of a candidate over a mistaken comment in an interview."Also weighing in: Ann Wagner, the Republican nominee for Akin's House seat. "Todd has apologized and understands he was wrong in what he said. It is now up to Missouri voters to decide whether they accept his apology," Wagner said in a statement.
*Two reportsindicatethat Akin has been in Tampa meeting with conservativeactivistsat the Council For National Policy, a group of conservativesshroudedinsecrecy. CNN reported Faith And Freedom Coalition founder Ralph Reed said he spoke with Akin and that the congressman and his team are undergoing a thorough assessment of whether or not the support is there to continue the campaign. Reed told The Fix the quote was out of context and he had "no knowledge or awareness that he or hus (sic) campaign are engaged in any reassessment." Reed added,"all I said is that he had every right to make his own decision and make his own assessment. I said I was confident he would make the right decision."For his own part, Akin tweeted Thursday that he hadraised over $100,000in the days since hiscontroversialremarks.
* Stumping in New Mexico, Mitt Romney pitched an energy plan grounded inlooseningenvironmentalregulations and increasingdomestic production of oil and coal. President Obama's campaign responded bycasting the plan as an attempt to cater to oil companies.
* Two new Ohio Senate polls are out: AQuinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times Swing State Pollshows Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) leading Republican state Treasurer Josh Mandel 48 percent to 41 percent whileaUniversity of Cincinnati surveyshows Brown with a 48 percent to 47 percent lead, which is inside the margin of error.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* The Republican-aligned group Crossroads GPSlauncheda four-state,$4.2 million Senate race ad buyin Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and Montana. A little more than half of the total buy is being spent in Florida, which contains severalexpensive media markets.
* AWinston Group pollof registered voters conducted for the GOP-aligned American Action Network shows a split when it comes to the Medicare messages the two parties are trying to drive home. When asked to choose between"the Republican candidate who says that President Obama cut $700 billion from Medicare for current seniors to fund his health care plan" and the "Democrat candidate who says that the Romney-Ryan plan will end Medicare as we know it and turn Medicare into a voucher system," 47 percent chose the former while 48 percent selected the latter.
* Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) does not believe the results of Republican-leaning automated pollster Rasmussen Reports' one-day poll showing Akin trailing her by ten points.McCaskill tweetedthe survey"made me laugh out loud. If anyone believes that, I just turned 29. Sneaky stuff."
*Republican National Convention CEO Bill Harris sought to make clear that Republicans are closely monitoring Tropical Storm Issac and are continuing to move ahead with convention planning. "We continue to move forward with our planning and look forward to a successful convention," he said.
THE FIX MIX:
A taste of fame.
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1180 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 23, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Akin case tests power of GOP's hierarchy
BYLINE: Paul Kane;Ed O'Keefe
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 1120 words
Republicans have had a long-standing reputation for orderliness and conformity that seemed to make the GOP the more manageable political party, compared with the always fractious Democrats.
But those days are long gone, and Rep. Todd Akin's defiant refusal to step aside as the party's Senate nominee in Missouri, despite near-universal condemnation from the Republican brass, is only the latest example of just how much the party's leadership infrastructure has atrophied - and the problems that presents for new GOP leaders, including Mitt Romney, the presidential nominee-in-waiting. "This is a good test. We're hierarchical. We respect authority. It will be interesting to see if our authority has become so disrespected that Akin can stay in the race," said Ed Rogers, a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush White House adviser who now chairs the Barbour, Griffith, Rogers lobbying firm.
Senior GOP strategists in Missouri and Washington hunkered down Wednesday for what they expect could be a week or more of waiting, first to see if Akin can raise enough money to continue his Senate bid, and then for polls to indicate how much damage the affair has done to their chances of toppling the Democratic incumbent, Sen. Claire McCaskill.
This latest example of fraying party power comes at the worst possible moment for the GOP, highlighting tensions between the Republican establishment and some of the party's most conservative activists as Romney is about to be crowned the presidential nominee next week in Tampa.
The firestorm erupted Sunday when Akin told a television interviewer in St. Louis that he opposes abortion, even in cases when the pregnancy resulted from rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," he said, adding that even if the woman became pregnant, "the punishment ought to be of the rapist and not attacking the child."
The denunciations came from far and wide, including from Romney, who urged Akin to "consider what course would be in the best interest of our country." The congressman apologized repeatedly but refused to quit. Romney's own influence in the party, already in doubt among some social conservatives because of his moderate stewardship as Massachusetts governor, is also on the line as Akin continues to defy him and the rest of the GOP leadership.
The flare-up also has driven the party off-message at a time when it had hoped to focus the campaign on President Obama's handling of the economy.
"We're a pro-life party, but we're much more focused on getting the economy back on track," said Nathan Conrad, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Republican Party.
Akin has complicated that message for the GOP this week, forcing Republicans across the country to issue one rejection of him after another.
Not that long ago, both Republicans and Democrats had the kind of party apparatus that had more leverage in choosing candidates and, if something went awry, was more forceful in pushing them aside for more viable alternatives.
In 2002, Minnesota Republican Tim Pawlenty, then a member of the state House, wanted to run for U.S. Senate. But Vice President Richard B. Cheney called him and ordered him into the governor's race so that Norm Coleman, then mayor of St. Paul, would have a clear shot at the Senate seat. Both Republicans went on to win that fall. In recent years, however, with a more diffuse campaign finance structure, national and state party organizations, particularly on the GOP side, have lost some of that clout.
Instead, interest groups have sprung up with fundraising networks that can connect anti-establishment candidates with sources of cash that weren't available to them just a decade ago.
"Today's candidate isn't necessarily beholden to the party," said former representative Tom Reynolds (N.Y.), a two-term chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Democrats, for years considered the more disorganized party, have had some of their own cases of political mutiny. In 2010, after then-Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties to become a Democrat, Obama and Pennsylvania's Democratic establishment strongly endorsed him, only to see him lose in the primary to Joe Sestak, a congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs who lost the general election. Republicans, however, seem more afflicted by the changes.
A recent example came in Texas, where the state's entire elected GOP establishment, led by Gov. Rick Perry, lined up behind Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the race for an open Senate seat. Dewhurst vastly outspent his primary opponent, Ted Cruz, before the July 31 runoff. But the former state solicitor general had reinforcements from conservative groups such as the Club for Growth, which spent more than $5 million on his victory.
Similar scenarios played out in so many Republican Senate primaries in 2010 - with anti-establishment candidates winning in Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado, Alaska and Delaware - that the National Republican Senatorial Committee threw up its hands this year and declared that it would not endorse in competitive primaries.
That's how the Aug. 7 primary in Missouri unfolded. No establishment figure emerged, and three candidates divided up various splinters of the conservative base: The Club for Growth and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported businessman John Brunner, Sarah Palin endorsed former state official Sarah Steelman, and Christian evangelical leaders supported Akin.
Since Akin's "legitimate rape" comment, Romney and GOP leaders have used every public strategy at their disposal to try to force him out of the race, which would allow state Republican officials to select his replacement.
"I have never seen such a strong messaging effort from a party asking a candidate not to run," Reynolds said. So far, without success.
Akin is betting that an ad campaign he launched Tuesday will help shore up his support and that his campaign will catch on with conservative activists in the same way Cruz's primary campaign did.
Dick Wadhams, a former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party and a longtime GOP operative, warned that the Akin incident could eventually mirror the way Colorado Republicans lost the 2010 governor's race, after sparring with the party's nominee, who had strong tea party support. The nominee then faced questions about his professional past, as well as a late third-party challenge from a conservative, helping elect Democrat John Hickenlooper.
"Sometimes candidates get into their own little world and talk themselves into this notion that they can get past a certain problem that is politically fatal," Wadhams said.
kanep@washpost.com
okeefee@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1181 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 23, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
In aggressive ads, media are sources of convenience
BYLINE: Paul Farhi
SECTION: Style; Pg. C01
LENGTH: 985 words
In a new 30-second TV ad, Mitt Romney attacks President Obama and his aides for their campaign claims. Or, more precisely, the ad lets others do the attacking: "Scraping bottom," reads a quote attributed to the Chicago Tribune. "Disgusting," says another that identifies ABC News as the source. "Unfair attacks," says a third, crediting CBS News.
Not to be outdone, Obama has his own movie-review style blurbs in his ads. In a series that questions Romney's business career and personal wealth, the commercials carry quotes from Vanity Fair, The Washington Post and the Boston Globe, among others.
At a time when the candidates stonewall the news media and occasionally vilify them, the ads illustrate another attitude: Both campaigns are happy to embrace the media when they appear to back up their latest claims or criticism. No ad in this campaign seems fully dressed until it wears the mainstream media's Good Housekeeping seal - a bit of print containing an approving comment or a corroborating factoid sourced to a brand-name news organization.
Political campaigns have always been happy to ride on the media's coattails when it suits them, of course, but the current cycle may be distinctive for the speed, aggressiveness and ubiquity of the practice.
The tactic suggests that campaigns still view the mainstream media - or "MSM" - as the standard for credibility and impartiality despite an erosion of public esteem and a media landscape atomized by a million partisan blogs and a billion snarky tweets. In recent weeks, Obama's ads have cited the Los Angeles Times, NPR, the Associated Press, the New York Times, ABC News and other full-fledged members of the media elite. One Obama ad mentioned the Wall Street Journal three times.
Romney and groups running ads on his behalf have referenced the New York Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Columbus Dispatch and USA Today. One Romney spot may have been the ultimate in MSM validation; it consisted of a clip from "Face the Nation" in which journalists from CBS News, Time magazine and the New York Times appeared to express disappointment that Obama hadn't fulfilled his promise of "hope and change."
Some of the ads even show copies of newspaper articles or headlines to prove that, indeed, a newspaper actually said whatever the ad says it said.
At the same time, both sides keep up a constant crossfire of news releases, tweets and e-mails that also base their claims on the MSM's say-so. "Can GOP Manage the Mic in Tampa?" asked a headline from an e-mail sent by the Democratic National Committee's Rapid Response team. Only it wasn't the DNC posing that question; it was flagging a story that appeared that day in Politico. The goal in circulating such stories: to influence reporters from other mainstream news organizations to pick up a theme or line of attack.
The practice may reflect the record amount of political advertising that has been unleashed, with independent groups, national party organizations and the candidates themselves pouring about $2 billion into commercials. Add in statements made via Twitter and Facebook, in Web videos and news releases, interviews and media appearances, and the need to dress up partisan arguments with well-known sources grows.
"There are simply more messages now than ever before, and each of these needs some kind of backup," says Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking watchdog site owned by the Tampa Bay Times. In such circumstances, Adair says, there's more demand for independent verification, or at least the illusion of it. Familiar names provide that, he says.
Adds Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager: "Voters see an independent source as more credible than the campaign just alleging something about their opponent. Fortunately, this cycle, we've had ample opportunity to do that."
Adair notes, however, that the campaigns are just as quick to criticize journalists as to trade on their credibility. Last month, the Virginia Republican Party wrote an "open letter" accusing PolitiFact of being biased in its assessments of statements made by the state's leading Republicans. Yet on the same day, George Allen's campaign for Senate cited PolitiFact's research in a news release that criticized Allen's Democratic opponent, Tim Kaine. The state Republican Party then posted Allen's release citing PolitiFact on its Web site. "They love [the media] when it suits them, and they hate us when it suits them," Adair says. "It's very conditional love."
What's more, using the MSM to provide credibility can be a deceptive practice, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. Viewers assume that a campaign ad that quotes a news organization is citing a news story from that publication, she says. In fact, the citation may have come from a partisan source writing an editorial, an op-ed column or a letter to the editor published by the news outlet. But viewers wouldn't know that from an ad that simply lists the name of the publication.
For example, a video from a group called Veterans for a Strong America cited The Washington Post as the source of a quote describing the president's "shameless gall" in taking excessive credit for the death of Osama bin Laden. The Post did publish such a quote, but it was in a blog written by Ed Rogers, a veteran Republican political operative.The two campaigns also went to the same source - The Post - in a recent battle over outsourcing. An Obama ad cited the paper to back his claim that Bain & Co. invested in companies that sent American jobs overseas when Romney headed the firm. Romney strongly objected to this characterization, and responded with an ad that featured a quote from a different Post article that had found some of Obama's statements about outsourcing "misleading, unfair and untrue."
farhip@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1182 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 23, 2012 Thursday 3:29 PM EST
Romney's slight swing-state surge;
Polling in a number of the most important states on the electoral map shows the GOP nominee leading or closing the gap.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 995 words
Swing state polls are swinging - ever so slightly - toward Mitt Romney.
Romney, who has generally performed better in national polls than in swing state polls, has seen that disparity begin to disappear.And in fact, recent polls in several swing states show Romney asserting a lead or closing the gap in a way he hadn't before.
Today's trio of swing state polls from Quinnipiac University, CBS News and the New York Times are the latest to show a little movement toward Romney.
Here's a recap:
- Wisconsin: Romney trailed by three points in a Marquette University poll released Wednesday and led in two automated polls conducted last week - his first lead in the state since mid-June. And the new Quinnipiac pollshows him reducing a six-point deficit from earlier this month down to two points in his new running mate's home state.
-Florida: Romney has led inevery poll conducted this monthexcept today'sQuinnipiac poll, and that poll showed him cutting a six-point deficit in half.
-Colorado: AQuinnipiac pollearlier this month showed Romney registering his first lead in the state.
- Nevada: A new automated SurveyUSA poll showed Romney trailing by two, which is tied for his smallest deficit in any poll.
-Ohio: An automatedPurple Strategies polllast week was the first since May to show Romney leading. (Though today's Q poll shows Obama's six-point lead remains intact).
- Virginia: The Purple Poll was the first poll since April to show Romney leading.
- Pennsylvania: Franklin and Marshall College, which showed Romney down by 12 points in early June, last week showed him closing to within five points in this blue-leaning state.
Remember: these are the states that will decide the presidency. National polls are fun/important and worth keeping an eye on, but as November approaches, the battle in this handful of states is what really matters.
Romney still trails in more swing state polls than he leads in, and a USA Today/Gallup poll released this week showed his performance in swing states (trailing President Obama 47 percent to 44 percent) continues to lag behind his performance elsewhere (ahead 47 percent to 45 percent)
But as Nate Silver pointed out Wednesday, it's not nearly as lopsided as it used to be. Silver notes that, in June and July, Obama led in about four times as many swing state polls as Romney did.
That had Democrats claiming that their attacks on Romney's tenure at Bain Capital were working. After all, they argued, the swing states are the places where those ads are running.
If that was the case, then it appears the GOP's ramped-up advertising - or maybe the bad economic news or Paul Ryan's selection as Romney's running mate - has brought things back near even. And while the Obama campaign has spent heavily early on, Republicans are expected to significantly outspend Democrats down the stretch.
In the end, it's not surprising to see the swing states begin to reflect the national race a little more. We live in a highly polarized country, where half of people are very much on one side and half are on the other. Swing states are supposed to reflect the national mood.
There's no big sea change in these polls - most changes are within the margin of error - and every poll is a snapshot in time.
But the preponderance of evidence - to borrow a legal term - suggests a race that is getting more competitive in the states that will decide the next president.
Ryan keeps dodging abortion questions: Ryan continues to deflect questions about his personal views on rape and abortion exceptions.
Asked during a local TV interviewin Pittsburgh whether he believes in an abortion exception for rape - he has previously said he supports only an exception for the life of the mother - Ryan emphasized that Romney's position is the one that matters.
And asked about legislation he co-sponsored with Rep. Todd Akin that used the words "forcible rape," Ryan again declined to explain what those words mean to him.
"Rape is rape, and theres no splitting hairs over rape," Ryan said.
This seems to be another instance of Ryan's paper trail running up against his newfound status as the GOP vice presidential candidate.
Republicans have handled the first instance - the cuts to Medicare contained in his budget - well by emphasizing that it's Romney's proposal that takes precedence. In this case, though, that argument is a little harder to make, because personal convictions about social issues are generally less malleable than economic policy preferences.
In other words, it will be hard for people and the media to simply accept the line that Romney's policy is what matters.
As for the "forcible rape" stuff, it's likely to be something Ryan gets asked about until he provides a more satisfactory answer.
Fixbits:
A new Obama ad features Bill Clinton.
More good news for the GOP in Nevada: A federal judge has struck down the law that requires a "none of the above" option on the ballot. Republicans worried that some anti-incumbent voters might pick that option over Romney, helping Obama.
A new poll suggests that Romney's ad questioning Obama's character is a winner.
Romney tries to return the focus to the economy.
Republicans' convention theme is "We Built This." Unfortunately for them, it will take place in a building that was constructed with public funds.
The same Nevada poll shows Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) leading Rep. Shelley Berkley (D) 44 percent to 39 percent.
The Club for Growth endorses Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) in the Florida Senate race.
Must-reads:
"Recession imminent if fiscal cliff of tax hikes, budget cuts not averted, CBO says" - Steven Mufson and Lori Montgomery, Washington Post
"Akins agenda wins loyalty of Christian groups" - Stephanie McCrummen and David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post
"Racial Comment by Republican Official in Ohio Rekindles Battle Over Early Voting" - Ray Rivera, New York Times
"Polygamists See Themselves In Romney, Obama FamilyTree" - McKay Coppins, BuzzFeed
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1183 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 23, 2012 Thursday 11:58 AM EST
Bill Clinton makes pitch for Obama in new ad;
The former president makes an economic case for Obama's reelection.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 185 words
President Obama is enlisting the help of former President Bill Clinton in his latest TV ad, a 30-second spot in which the former president casts the election as a "clear choice" between two competing economic plans.
"The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper income people and go back to deregulation," Clinton says in the spot. "Thats what got us in trouble in the first place.
Clinton goes on to add that Obama's plan will "rebuild America from the ground up, investing in innovation, education and job training. It only works if there is a strong middle class. Thats what happened when I was president."
The ad will air in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada, the Obama campaign said.
Clinton, viewed as an effective surrogate for Obama, was recentlyreferencedin an ad for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The Romney ad argued that Obama is gutting welfare reform put in place by Clinton in 1996.Clintondenouncedthe Romney spot, which theWashington Post Fact Checker gave four Pinocchios, a designation for the most misleading arguments.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1184 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 23, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
Akin case tests power of GOP's hierarchy
BYLINE: Paul Kane;Ed O'Keefe
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 1106 words
Republicans have had a long-standing reputation for orderliness and conformity that seemed to make the GOP the more manageable political party, compared with the always fractious Democrats.
But those days are long gone, and Rep. Todd Akin's defiantrefusal to step asideas the party's Senate nominee in Missouri, despite near-universal condemnation from the Republican brass, is only the latest example of just how much the party's leadership infrastructure has atrophied - and the problems that presents for new GOP leaders, including Mitt Romney, the presidential nominee-in-waiting.
"This is a good test. We're hierarchical. We respect authority. It will be interesting to see if our authority has become so disrespected that Akin can stay in the race," said Ed Rogers, a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush White House adviser who now chairs the Barbour, Griffith, Rogers lobbying firm.
Senior GOP strategists in Missouri and Washington hunkered down Wednesday for what they expect could be a week or more of waiting, first to see if Akin can raise enough money to continue his Senate bid, and then for polls to indicate how much damage the affair has done to their chances of toppling the Democratic incumbent, Sen. Claire McCaskill.
This latest example of fraying party power comes at the worst possible moment for the GOP, highlighting tensions between the Republican establishment and some of the party's most conservative activists as Romney is about to be crowned the presidential nominee next week in Tampa.
The firestorm erupted Sunday when Akin told a television interviewer in St. Louis that he opposes abortion, even in cases when the pregnancy resulted from rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," he said, adding that even if the woman became pregnant, "the punishment ought to be of the rapist and not attacking the child."
The denunciations came from far and wide, including from Romney, who urged Akin to "consider what course would be in the best interest of our country." The congressman apologized repeatedly but refused to quit.
Romney's own influence in the party, already in doubt among some social conservatives because of his moderate stewardship as Massachusetts governor, is also on the line as Akin continues to defy him and the rest of the GOP leadership.
The flare-up also has driven the party off-message at a time when it had hoped to focus the campaign on President Obama's handling of the economy.
"We're a pro-life party, but we're much more focused on getting the economy back on track," said Nathan Conrad, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Republican Party.
Akin has complicated that message for the GOP this week, forcing Republicans across the country to issue one rejection of him after another.
Not that long ago, both Republicans and Democrats had the kind of party apparatus that had more leverage in choosing candidates and, if something went awry, was more forceful in pushing them aside for more viable alternatives.
In 2002, Minnesota Republican Tim Pawlenty, then a member of the state House, wanted to run for U.S. Senate. But Vice President Richard B. Cheney called him and ordered him into the governor's race so that Norm Coleman, then mayor of St. Paul, would have a clear shot at the Senate seat. Both Republicans went on to win that fall.
In recent years, however, with a more diffuse campaign finance structure, national and state party organizations, particularly on the GOP side, have lost some of that clout.
Instead, interest groups have sprung up with fundraising networks that can connect anti-establishment candidates with sources of cash that weren't available to them just a decade ago.
"Today's candidate isn't necessarily beholden to the party," said former representative Tom Reynolds (N.Y.), a two-term chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Democrats, for years considered the more disorganized party, have had some of their own cases of political mutiny. In 2010, after then-Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties to become a Democrat, Obama and Pennsylvania's Democratic establishment strongly endorsed him, only to see him lose in the primaryto Joe Sestak, a congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs who lost the general election.
Republicans, however, seem more afflicted by the changes.
A recent example came in Texas, where the state's entire elected GOP establishment, led by Gov. Rick Perry, lined up behind Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the race for an open Senate seat. Dewhurst vastly outspent his primary opponent, Ted Cruz, before the July 31 runoff. But the former state solicitor general had reinforcements from conservative groups such as the Club for Growth, which spent more than $5 million on his victory.
Similar scenarios played out in so many Republican Senate primaries in 2010 - with anti-establishment candidates winning in Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado, Alaska and Delaware - that the National Republican Senatorial Committee threw up its hands this year and declared that it would not endorse in competitive primaries.
That's how the Aug. 7 primary in Missouri unfolded. No establishment figure emerged, and three candidates divided up various splinters of the conservative base: The Club for Growth and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported businessman John Brunner, Sarah Palin endorsed former state official Sarah Steelman, and Christian evangelical leaders supported Akin.
Since Akin's "legitimate rape" comment, Romney and GOP leaders have used every public strategy at their disposal to try to force him out of the race, which would allow state Republican officials to select his replacement.
"I have never seen such a strong messaging effort from a party asking a candidate not to run," Reynolds said. So far, without success.
Akin is betting that an ad campaign he launched Tuesday will help shore up his support and that his campaign will catch on with conservative activists in the same way Cruz's primary campaign did.
Dick Wadhams, a former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party and a longtime GOP operative, warned that the Akin incident could eventually mirror the way Colorado Republicans lost the 2010 governor's race, after sparring with the party's nominee, who had strong tea party support. The nominee then faced questions about his professional past, as well as a late third-party challenge from a conservative, helping elect Democrat John Hickenlooper.
"Sometimes candidates get into their own little world and talk themselves into this notion that they can get past a certain problem that is politically fatal," Wadhams said.
kanep@washpost.com
okeefee@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1185 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 23, 2012 Thursday
Met 2 Edition
In aggressive ads, media are sources of convenience
BYLINE: Paul Farhi
SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C01
LENGTH: 996 words
In a new 30-second TV ad, Mitt Romney attacks President Obama and his aides for their campaign claims. Or, more precisely, the ad lets others do the attacking: "Scraping bottom," reads a quote attributed to the Chicago Tribune. "Disgusting," says another that identifies ABC News as the source. "Unfair attacks," says a third, crediting CBS News.
Not to be outdone, Obama has his own movie-review style blurbs in his ads. In a series that questions Romney's business career and personal wealth, the commercials carry quotes from Vanity Fair, The Washington Post and the Boston Globe, among others.
At a time when the candidates stonewall the news media and occasionally vilify them, the ads illustrate another attitude: Both campaigns are happy to embrace the media when they appear to back up their latest claims or criticism. No ad in this campaign seems fully dressed until it wears the mainstream media's Good Housekeeping seal - a bit of print containing an approving comment or a corroborating factoid sourced to a brand-name news organization.
Political campaigns have always been happy to ride on the media's coattails when it suits them, of course, but the current cycle may be distinctive for the speed, aggressiveness and ubiquity of the practice.
The tactic suggests that campaigns still view the mainstream media - or "MSM" - as the standard for credibility and impartiality despite an erosion of public esteem and a media landscape atomized by a million partisan blogs and a billion snarky tweets.
In recent weeks, Obama's ads have cited the Los Angeles Times, NPR, the Associated Press, the New York Times, ABC News and other full-fledged members of the media elite. One Obama ad mentioned the Wall Street Journal three times.
Romney and groups running ads on his behalf have referenced the New York Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Columbus Dispatch and USA Today. One Romney spotmay have been the ultimate in MSM validation; it consisted of a clip from "Face the Nation" in which journalists from CBS News, Time magazine and the New York Times appeared to express disappointment that Obama hadn't fulfilled his promise of "hope and change."
Some of the ads even show copies of newspaper articles or headlines to prove that, indeed, a newspaper actually said whatever the ad says it said.
At the same time, both sides keep up a constant crossfire of news releases, tweets and e-mails that also base their claims on the MSM's say-so. "Can GOP Manage the Mic in Tampa?" asked a headline from an e-mail sent by the Democratic National Committee's Rapid Response team. Only it wasn't the DNC posing that question; it was flagging a story that appeared that day in Politico. The goal in circulating such stories: to influence reporters from other mainstream news organizations to pick up a theme or line of attack.
The practice may reflect the record amount of political advertising that has been unleashed, with independent groups, national party organizations and the candidates themselves pouring about $2 billion into commercials. Add in statements made via Twitter and Facebook, in Web videos and news releases, interviews and media appearances, and the need to dress up partisan arguments with well-known sources grows.
"There are simply more messages now than ever before, and each of these needs some kind of backup," says Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact.com, the fact-checking watchdog site owned by the Tampa Bay Times. In such circumstances, Adair says, there's more demand for independent verification, or at least the illusion of it. Familiar names provide that, he says.
Adds Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager: "Voters see an independent source as more credible than the campaign just alleging something about their opponent. Fortunately, this cycle, we've had ample opportunity to do that."
Adair notes, however, that the campaigns are just as quick to criticize journalists as to trade on their credibility. Last month, the Virginia Republican Party wrote an "open letter" accusing PolitiFact of being biased in its assessments of statements made by the state's leading Republicans. Yet on the same day, George Allen's campaign for Senate cited PolitiFact's research in a news release that criticized Allen's Democratic opponent, Tim Kaine. The state Republican Party then posted Allen's release citing PolitiFact on its Web site.
"They love [the media] when it suits them, and they hate us when it suits them," Adair says. "It's very conditional love."
What's more, using the MSM to provide credibility can be a deceptive practice, says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. Viewers assume that a campaign ad that quotes a news organization is citing a news story from that publication, she says. In fact, the citation may have come from a partisan source writing an editorial, an op-ed column or a letter to the editor published by the news outlet. But viewers wouldn't know that from an ad that simply lists the name of the publication.
For example, a video from a group called Veterans for a Strong America cited The Washington Post as the source of a quote describingthe president's "shameless gall" in taking excessive credit for the death of Osama bin Laden. The Post did publish such a quote, but it was in a blog written by Ed Rogers, a veteran Republican political operative.
The two campaigns also went to the same source - The Post - in a recent battle over outsourcing. An Obama ad cited the paper to back his claim http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/new-obama-ad-romney-believes-in-outsourcing/2012/07/03/gJQAIkUUKW_blog.htmlthat Bain & Co. invested in companies that sent American jobs overseas when Romney headed the firm. Romney strongly objected to this characterization, and responded with an ad that featured a quote from a different Post article that had found some of Obama's statements about outsourcing "misleading, unfair and untrue."
farhip@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1186 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 22, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Former G.O.P. Hero Plays Down Label
BYLINE: By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 1132 words
BOSTON -- When Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts a decade ago, he said that the ''R'' after his name stood for ''Reform.''''It's always a burden for someone to run with 'R for Republican' after their name,'' he said at the time.
Now that Mr. Romney is his party's presumptive presidential nominee, he has managed to add to that burden for fellow Republicans in deep-blue Massachusetts. Exhibit A is Senator Scott P. Brown, who is locked in a dead heat in the nation's most expensive Senate race with his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren. The race is one of a handful likely to determine which party controls the Senate, but Mr. Brown is doing all he can to erase the notion of party politics from the public consciousness -- a balancing act that has become trickier since Mr. Romney chose Representative Paul D. Ryan, a fiscal hawk, as his running mate.
''I'm my own person,'' Mr. Brown said last week in one of his first interviews after Mr. Ryan had been picked. ''I'm a Scott Brown Republican,'' he added, pointing out that he had voted against Mr. Ryan's budget proposals, twice.
Hailed as a Republican hero in 2010 when he snared the Senate seat held for decades by Edward M. Kennedy, Mr. Brown has been shucking his party label ever since. He spent more than $1 million last week -- an astonishing amount in the summer doldrums -- to air a series of elegiac commercials in which Democrats praise him as an independent.
He was the first Republican senator this week to call on Representative Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican, to give up his Senate race because of his controversial statements about rape. He called for a more inclusive party platform to reflect support for abortion rights. And he plans to keep a low profile at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., next week, attending only one day.
Democrats in Massachusetts were thrilled with the selection of Mr. Ryan, whose conservative fiscal and social views are out of sync with New England Republicanism, and Ms. Warren is determined to pin him on Mr. Brown.
She refers constantly these days to the ''Romney-Ryan-Brown'' ticket and to the stringent ''Ryan-Brown-Romney'' budget plan.
The Ryan selection has underscored a big difference in how the Brown and Warren campaigns are approaching the election: Mr. Brown's is local while Ms. Warren's is national, to his apparent irritation. ''I know that Professor Warren would love to run against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, but unfortunately she's running against me,'' Mr. Brown said Wednesday as reporters continued to pepper him with questions about the Republican ticket.
Ms. Warren, who entered the race as a crusader for Wall Street reform and has attracted contributions from all 50 states, has kept her sights on the big picture. She is spending almost as much money on her commercials ($927,000 last week) as Mr. Brown is, according to Kantar Media's Campaign Analysis Group, but her focus is on national issues, like investment in infrastructure and education.
Ms. Warren's campaign is national, too, because her success is tied so closely to that of President Obama, who is expected to carry Massachusetts overwhelmingly. She has been given a prime-time speaking role next month at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., where she will appear just before former President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Brown, by contrast, has successfully navigated the treacherous waters for Republicans here in part by avoiding national issues.
''The path to victory for Brown is by relating to the people of Massachusetts,'' said Marty Meehan, a former Democratic congressman who is now chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. ''He can say, 'I may be a Republican, but I vote with Democrats and I'll work in a bipartisan way as I did with Barney Frank' '' on financial reform.
With the possibility now of a Romney-Ryan administration, Mr. Brown has also been reaffirming his independence.
''Regardless of who is pushing it, a good idea is a good idea,'' Mr. Brown declared last week as he received the endorsement of the United States Chamber of Commerce. He often cites a Congressional Quarterly analysis that found he voted with his party only 54 percent of the time, making him the second-most bipartisan member of the Senate.
At events, Mr. Brown likes to emphasize the personal over the political (except when he is ripping into Ms. Warren and describing her as anti-business or excessively partisan).
''Hank and I went to Tufts together,'' Mr. Brown noted at the chamber endorsement, which took place on the factory floor of the Harry Miller textile company, whose president, Hank Miller, was hosting the event.
''He played soccer while I played basketball,'' Mr. Brown went on. ''We both have families now and do triathlons and take a lot of Aleve, I think, to actually get up in the morning.'' There were chuckles all around.
The light approach comes naturally to Mr. Brown, who was saved from a wayward youth by playing basketball, but it is also strategic, helping him cast Ms. Warren, who teaches at Harvard Law School and whom he derisively refers to as ''Professor Warren,'' as someone alien to the local sports-obsessed culture.
Some voters respond well to his style. ''He's homegrown,'' said William Topper, a professor at Curry College, as he waited to hear Mr. Brown speak at a South Shore Chamber of Commerce lunch. ''He reaches across the aisle and he knows his constituency from the grass roots up.''
Others are turned off. ''It irritates the hell out of me,'' said Elisa Birdseye, a librarian and Warren volunteer waiting to greet Ms. Warren at a restaurant in Dorchester. ''He's trying to appeal to the Reagan Democrats who, for some reason, vote against their own best interests.''
Tom Whalen, a professor at Boston University, described Mr. Brown's approach as that of ''the jock candidate, the big man on campus,'' and said he seemed to be running for homeroom president rather than the United States Senate. But, he said, Mr. Brown has been forced into this position because ''if he takes the stances of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, he'll lose.''
Ms. Warren has a more critical view of Mr. Brown's eagerness to join nonpartisan events like bike rides and basketball games.
''He's out and visible without having to talk about the issues or take any questions, because when he talks about the issues, he's got a real problem,'' she said while campaigning in Quincy.
Jason Kauppi, a Republican consultant not involved with the Brown or Romney campaigns, said he expected that with Mr. Ryan on the ticket, Mr. Brown would showcase his independence even more. But he also predicted Ms. Warren would continue to try to saddle Mr. Brown with his own party. ''It's the play I'd use if I were the Democrats,'' he said. ''Tie him to Ryan.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/us/politics/scott-brown-plays-down-republican-label-in-massachusetts.html
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Senator Scott P. Brown met with constituents during a campaign event in Fairhaven, Mass.
Elizabeth Warren entered the race as a Wall Street reformer and has attracted contributions from all over the country. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY GRETCHEN ERTL FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1187 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Media Decoder)
August 22, 2012 Wednesday
Donations by Media Companies Tilt Heavily to Obama
BYLINE: AMY CHOZICK
SECTION: BUSINESS; media
LENGTH: 649 words
HIGHLIGHT: According to a report by the Center for Responsive Politics, companies like Time Warner, Comcast and, yes, News Corporation have donated more to the president than to his opponent, Mitt Romney.
Wall Street may lean Republican this presidential election cycle, but the New York media world is staunchly Democratic.
All the major media companies, driven largely by their Hollywood film and television businesses, have made larger contributions to President Obama than to his rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan Washington-based research group that publishes the Open Secrets Web site.
The center's numbers represent donations by a company's PAC and any employees who listed that company as their employer.
Even companies whose news outlets are often perceived as having a conservative bias have given significantly more money to Mr. Obama. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, for example, has contributed $58,825 to Mr. Obama's campaign, compared with $2,750 to Mr. Romney. The conglomerate, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and the 20th Century Fox studios, gave roughly the same amount to Mr. Romney's Republican primary competitors Rick Perry and Ron Paul as it did to Mr. Romney.
But the choice of Representative Paul Ryan, the conservative congressman from Wisconsin, to be Mr. Romney's running mate, might help win News Corporation dollars. Shortly after Mr. Romney's announcement, Mr. Murdoch took to Twitter: "Thank God! Now we might have a real election on the great issues of the day. Paul Ryan almost perfect choice."
Mr. Murdoch has not been shy about expressing his criticism of Mr. Romney, including at a tense Journal editorial board meeting with the candidate that led the newspaper's opinion pages to characterize Mr. Romney as Consultant in Chief. The announcement that Mr. Ryan would join the ticket came after The Journal's editorial page published a column titled "Why Not Paul Ryan?"
News Corporation has donated $504,162 to individuals, Super PACs and candidates in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics's OpenSecrets Web site. Eight of the 10 top recipients of that cash are Democrats. (Mr. Murdoch's personal contributions largely favor Republicans, though his wife, Wendi Murdoch, has donated to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York.)
In 2008, News Corporation contributed $380,558 to Mr. Obama's campaign, compared with $32,740 to the Republican nominee John McCain.
Other media companies have contributed more significantly to Mr. Obama, including Time Warner, owner of CNN and the magazine publishing house Time Inc. The company, which is based in New York and also owns Warner Brothers and HBO, has contributed $191,834 to Mr. Obama in the 2012 election cycle, compared with $10,750 to Mr. Romney. The Walt Disney Company, owner of ABC and ESPN, donated $125,856 to Mr. Obama and $9,950 to Mr. Romney.
Philadelphia-based Comcast Corporation, owner of NBCUniversal and one of the biggest spenders in lobbying money in Washington, has given $206,056 to Mr. Obama and $20,500 to Mr. Romney.
Each of these media companies were among the roughly 150 organizations listed by the Center for Responsive Politics as "heavy hitters" that have given the most money. The New York Times Company was not among the center's "heavy hitters" and does not have a PAC; the newspaper discourages employees from contributing to political campaigns.
Despite the media money pouring in to his opponent, Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee still have a significant cash advantage over Mr. Obama and the Democrats. According to a Federal Election Commission report released Monday, the GOP had $186 million on hand, compared with $124 million for Democrats.
Obama Video on Fox News Criticized as Attack Ad
The Breakfast Meeting: Back to the '50s in Politics, and Chris Nolan on Shooting in Film
Some Hot Type on Image of First Lady
The Breakfast Meeting: New Entry in the Tablet Landscape, and a More Hip NPR
Romney's Sons to Make a Joint Appearance on 'Conan'
LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1188 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 22, 2012 Wednesday
Akin Remarks Push Gender Issues to Center Stage
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR and JONATHAN WEISMAN
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 1138 words
HIGHLIGHT: Todd Akin's refusal to step aside in the Missouri Senate race has forced gender issues back into the political conversation, just as Mitt Romney was hoping to refocus it on his personal story and the nation's struggling economy.
Just days before Mitt Romney formally assumes the leadership of his party, he and his Republican colleagues are once again confronting the party's long-standing difficulty attracting the support of women - a demographic reality that could cost Mr. Romney the White House.
Representative Todd Akin's refusal to step aside in the Missouri Senate race in the wake of his comments about rape and pregnancy has forced gender issues back into the political conversation just as Mr. Romney was hoping to refocus it on his personal story and the nation's struggling economy.
And the Republican Party's decision this week to endorse an anti-abortion plank at its convention - without an exception for rape - raises new questions about whether, and how, Mr. Romney and his running mate, Paul D. Ryan, can close the party's gap in support among women.
In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday, President Obama leads Mr. Romney among women by 10 percentage points, 51 percent to 41 percent.
In the last 24 hours, Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have all but ignored the broader issues of abortion and gender politics on the trail. The subject did not come up at a joint town-hall-style meeting in New Hampshire on Monday morning, and Mr. Ryan did not bring up the issue at a rally in Roanoke, Va.,Wednesday morning.
Mr. Ryan, who co-sponsored a bill with Mr. Akin that aimed to restrict the definition of rape, was pressed on Mr. Akin's comments in a television interview Wednesday morning. Mr. Ryan declared that "rape is rape, and there's no splitting hairs over rape." He defended his record on abortion but said Mr. Romney would set policy as president.
"I'm proud of my pro-life record. And I stand by my pro-life record in Congress," Mr. Ryan said on Pittsburgh's KDKA-TV. "It's something I'm proud of. But Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president, and he will set the policy of the Romney administration."
Democrats have seized on the Akin comments - which have been condemned by Mr. Romney and most Republican leaders - much the way they did when the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh called the contraception activist Sandra Fluke "a slut." Democrats announced on Wednesday that Ms. Fluke would speak at the Democratic convention in Charlotte next month.
The president's team had already been running ads aimed at convincing women that Mr. Romney would undermine abortion rights and cut funding for contraception and women's health services. Now, the Democratic campaign is hoping those messages have even more impact.
In one Obama ad, a woman says: "I've never felt this way before, but it's a scary time to be a woman. Mitt Romney is just so out of touch."
Emily's List, a campaign group that promotes Democratic women, sought to link a host of House Republicans to Mr. Akin's views. The group singled out 13 House Republicans - including one freshman woman, Vicky Hartzler of Missouri - who are all being challenged by a Democratic woman who favors abortion rights. The 13 Republicans all co-sponsored anti-abortion legislation last year that sought to narrow the exemption for federal funding from rape to "forcible rape."
"I wish Todd Akin's backwards thinking made him an outlier," said Emily's List president, Stephanie Schriock. "But the truth is, he's totally in line with today's Republican Party."
Top aides to Mr. Romney have criticized the abortion ads as inaccurate and misleading, noting that Mr. Romney has always supported keeping abortion legal in cases of rape and incest. But after Mr. Akin's comments and the party's platform actions, it is not clear whether Mr. Romney's campaign plans new efforts to reach out to women.
Republican aides declined to discuss Mr. Akin's situation or the party platform, referring questions about Mr. Akin to the public comments Mr. Romney has made in interviews. In a statement issued Tuesday, Mr. Romney called on him to step aside.
"Todd Akin's comments were offensive and wrong, and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country," Mr. Romney said. "His fellow Missourians urged him to step aside, and I think he should accept their counsel and exit the Senate race."
Other Republicans, who are keenly aware of the damage that Mr. Akin's comments on rape could do to the party's support among women, have been quick to condemn his choice of words. Representative Jo Ann Emerson, a nine-term Republican from Missouri, came out strongly against her House colleague.
"Todd Akin made a reprehensible, inexcusable and dangerous comment," she said in a statement. "He was wrong to say what he did about rape, and the ignorance of that view has no place in our party, in our culture or in our country."
The issue of how to narrow the gender gap was always going to be difficult for Mr. Romney, whose passed up an opportunity to put another woman on his ticket by picking Mr. Ryan, the House budget chairman, as his running mate.
Instead, Republican convention planners are hoping to present a series of leading women as speakers when the convention starts in Tampa, Fla., on Monday. Chief among them is Ann Romney, whose popularity easily exceeds her husband's and who is scheduled to speak on Monday evening.
Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, will each have prominent speaking roles at the convention, officials announced this month.
"They are some of our party's brightest stars, who have governed and led effectively and admirably in their respective roles," Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said.
Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and the party's 2008 vice-presidential nominee, will not speak at the convention. But in an indication of how little support Mr. Akin has, even among conservatives, Ms. Palin called on Mr. Akin to step aside Tuesday.
"We have to think, well, what's another option? Is a third party another option?" Ms. Palin saidon Fox News's "On the Record" program. "If it is, let's go. The status quo has got to go."
But Mr. Romney's choice of Mr. Ryan has also complicated his campaign's outreach to women by adding Mr. Ryan's record in Congress to the list of positions that Mr. Romney must explain and defend.
In addition to the bill he co-sponsored with Mr. Akin that would have restricted the definition of rape, Mr. Ryan also voted for dozens of bills that sought to oppose or restrict abortion rights, earning him high marks with groups that advocate against abortion.
Now that Mr. Ryan is part of the Republican ticket, Mr. Romney and his campaign strategists must find a way to incorporate his record on gender issues into the campaign's broader message aimed at women.
Planned Parenthood Ads to Target Romney
Democratic Strategist Apologizes for Ann Romney Comment
LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1189 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 22, 2012 Wednesday
Obama Promotes His Education Credentials, Putting Down Romney's
BYLINE: MARK LANDLER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 790 words
HIGHLIGHT: At a rally at a Las Vegas high school, President Obama said: "I've got a question for Governor Romney: How many teachers' jobs are worth another tax cut for millionaires and billionaires?"
LAS VEGAS - It's back-to-school time, and President Obama has been all but handing out three-ring binders and pencil sharpeners this week, as he promotes his education credentials and slams those of his challenger, Mitt Romney.
Speaking to a raucous rally at a high school here, Mr. Obama accused his Republican opponent of dismissing concerns about crowded classrooms. Mr. Romney, the president said, would impose deep cuts on education funding, as part of the favor-the-rich Republican budget drafted by his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan.
"I've got a question for Governor Romney: How many teachers' jobs are worth another tax cut for millionaires and billionaires?" he said. "That's not who we are. That's not how we built the greatest economy and the strongest middle class in the world."
Earlier, the president held a round table with three teachers at Canyon Springs High School, where one, Lori Elizabeth Henrickson, told him that she worried that teeming classes deprived students of the attention they need to learn. Clark County, where Las Vegas is, has the largest average class sizes in the nation, Mr. Obama said.
"Governor Romney says we've got enough teachers; we don't need any more," he said. "The way he talks about them, it seems as if he thinks they are a bunch of nameless government bureaucrats that we need to cut back on."
The teacher-heavy crowd of 2,720, packed into a gymnasium draped in basketball banners, was one of the most enthusiastic of Mr. Obama's campaign so far. But he was also interrupted by a protester, whose angry questions were drowned out by chants of "four more years," as security guards bundled him out of the room.
"That young man probably needed a good teacher," Mr. Obama said.
On the second day of Mr. Obama's education swing, he shifted focus from higher to secondary education, but kept up the combative tone. The president promoted his administration's granting of waivers to states from the testing requirements of the Bush-era education law, No Child Left Behind. He said he had tried to allocate federal money to rehire laid-off teachers, but had been stymied by House Republicans, including Mr. Ryan.
When the audience erupted in catcalls, he said, "Don't boo. Vote."
To reinforce the president's education message in other states, the campaign released a new 30-second commercial called "Children," which features an interview with parents in which they talk about the importance of smaller classes, while a narrator condemns Mr. Romney. It will be broadcast in Virginia and Ohio on Thursday.
The growing intensity of the campaign is evident in Mr. Obama's schedule, which will put him on the road next week, in the battleground states of Iowa, Colorado and Virginia, during the first two days of the Republican National Convention.
In elections past, candidates laid low during the conventions of their rivals. But such niceties have largely vanished in the last couple of cycles. Next week, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will campaign in Tampa, Fla., even as the Republicans gather there. Mr. Obama is not scheduled to campaign on the day Mr. Romney accepts the nomination.
The president will maintain his back-to-school theme. His destinations -- Ames, Iowa; Fort Collins, Colo.; and Charlottesville, Va. -- are home to Iowa State University, Colorado State University and the University of Virginia.
It was Mr. Obama's 6th visit to Nevada this year, and the 11th since he took office, symbolizing how fiercely he is fighting to hang on to its 6 electoral votes. He won Nevada over Senator John McCain by 12 points in 2008.
By rights, say some analysts, Mr. Obama should be in trouble here: the state has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and is a national leader in foreclosures. Few places have been harder hit by the housing crisis, the lingering nature of which was illustrated by a billboard on the route of Mr. Obama's motorcade in Reno on Tuesday.
"Mortgage Forgiveness Ends in 2012," said the advertisement, promoting RenoShortSales.com, a company that specializes in liquidating houses with delinquent mortgages. It was referring to the expiration of a government program that allows homeowners to avoid paying taxes on loans forgiven by lenders, when they sell their homes.
On two previous visits to Nevada, Mr. Obama highlighted his response to the crisis, meeting with struggling homeowners and announcing a program to help people with good credit to refinance mortgages at low interest rates.
On this visit, though, Mr. Obama conspicuously failed to mention housing, aside from an oblique reference to Nevada's having "been through tougher times than most states." The Obama campaign, it was clear, was intent to stick to its message of education.
LOAD-DATE: August 23, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1190 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 22, 2012 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
High stakes for conventions;
The Democratic Party needs a jolt. Mitt Romney needs a vision. This year's festivities just might set records.
BYLINE: Don Campbell
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 895 words
National political conventions are sometimes dismissed as scripted-to-the-minute, mostly boring, campaign commercials. I've done that myself. But that doesn't stop the news media from simultaneously speculating on which party's presidential ticket will get the biggest "bounce" from several nights of prime-time coverage.
I won't join in that speculation, but I will predict that both conventions -- the GOP production starting Monday in Tampa and the Democratic gathering beginning Sept. 4 in Charlotte -- will play an important part in deciding who wins the White House in November. I also predict that television viewership will be higher than average, possibly surpassing the record audiences attracted to the 2008 conventions.
Why very important? Because if the polls are right, Democrats need something to jolt them out of their lethargy. And undecided voters need to hear Mitt Romney present a concise, detailed vision of where he would take the country, and how. If those things happen, both conventions will have further restored significance to an institution that often has seemed irrelevant.
Conventions are held primarily to officially pick a presidential nominee, but neither party has opened its convention with that issue in doubt in decades. Ronald Reagan led the last Republican insurection in a losing effort to deny incumbent Gerald Ford the 1976 GOP nomination. Sen. Edward Kennedy led a similar bruising battle to unseat Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980. Notably, those two conventions drew the largest television audiences in history before 2008 -- and that was before the arrival of cable television and other media platforms.
Given the predictability of what will happen, there's usually some kind of stagecraft designed to build suspense. Romney pre-empted one suspense option by naming Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate more than two weeks before the GOP convention's opening.
Looking for drama
The news media, of course, will try to manufacture controversies and will hype speakers -- sometimes legitimately, as in 2004, when little-known Senate candidate Barack Obama from Illinois burst on the scene, or in 1976, when an iconic House member from Houston, Barbara Jordan, filled New York's Madison Square Garden with spell-binding oratory. Given his shoot-from-the-lip style, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's keynote in Tampa might warrant the buildup it's already getting.
Absent that, it's hard to build and sustain much drama before the nominee's acceptance speech. TV viewers with a remote in their hand are unlikely to sit through a series of pedestrian speeches aimed at showcasing a laundry list of party interest groups, or a pro-forma debate over a party platform that will be forgotten before the final gavel is sounded.
But 2012 presents Romney and Obama with different worries and serious needs for the conventions to meet.
Romney starts with a smaller support base -- conservatives, older voters, business owners, upscale suburbanites, working-class and rural whites. And though voters who don't live in battleground states might not have a clear fix on him, his personal popularity trails Obama's when the number of undecided voters is unusually low for this stage of the campaign.
Recent polls have put the undecided vote at 3% to 8%. Four years ago at this time, the undecideed vote was at 11% to 12%. Events in the fall campaign -- the debates, changing economic news -- could shift support or move more people into the undecided category. Without that, I think Romney and Obama will be fighting over as few as 4 million or 5 million votes. (It's a measure of how polarized the country has become that so few people are undecided in the year that the number of voters describing themselves as independent has reached an all-time high of 38% .)
However many undecideds there are, Romney needs more of them than Obama does. And to get them, he needs to make the speech of his life, not one that says this election is a referendum on Obama (although it is), but one that tells America who he is and explains passionately and convincingly how he proposes to fix things.
Democrats lack enthusiasm
Obama's problem is the decline in enthusiasm for the election among Democrats. Gallup recently reported that only 39% of Democrats are "more enthusiastic than usual" about this election, compared with 61% in 2008 and 68% in 2004. By contrast, Gallup found that 51% of Republicans were "more enthusiastic than usual," a figure that is apt to rise with Ryan's addition to the ticket.
There's little doubt that Obama has a larger and more solid voter base. His support ranges from a decided edge to a mortal lock among minorities, public employee union members, trial lawyers, gays, academics, environmentalists, young voters and single women.
Two segments of that base -- minorities and young voters -- can be hard to get to the voting booth. Ginning up enthusiasm among them and others is Job 1 for Obama and the Democrats in Charlotte, and then turning them out in November.
Rather than speculate about who will get the bigger convention bounce, I will say this: Most voters already have strong opinions, pro or con, about Barack Obama.
Mitt Romney's challenge is to leave Tampa with the same thing said of him.
Don Campbell, a former Washington journalist, lives in Dayton, Ohio, and is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1191 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 22, 2012 Wednesday 9:44 PM EST
New poll shows Obama, Romney running neck-and-neck in Wisconsin;
Obama's lead over Romney is within the margin of error in the Badger State.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 572 words
The presidential race is statistically tied in Wisconsin, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) loses more support, and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) says Elizabeth Warren must be confused.
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
What the books we buy says about our politics, in one map
GOP delegates will vote to nominate Romney on Monday
An Akin exit could cost GOP significant $$$
How many Republicans agree with Todd Akin on abortion?
A brief history of Todd Akins controversial statements
Why cant we be friends? Because were partisan.
We read Obamas Last Stand so you dont have to
Seniors <3 Paul Ryan
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* A new Marquette Law School poll shows thepresidentialrace isstatisticallytied inWisconsin, with President Obama leading Mitt Romney 49 percent to 46 percent, an advantage which is inside the margin of error. The survey also shows former Republican governor Tommy Thompson leading Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) 50 percent to 41 percent in the Senate race.
*Emerson Electric, a major corporate financial backer of Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), isn't backing him any longer.We backedTodd Akinas a candidate who would help restore the U.S. economy. Given his recent comments, we no longer support his candidacy,said Emerson spokesman MarkPolzin.
* Obama continued to hammer Romney on the issue of education during a campaign stop in Las Vegas, Nevada.Ive got a question for Governor Romney: How many teachers jobs are worth another tax cut for millionaires and billionaires? the president asked at a rally.
* Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters that he is "proud" of his record on abortion rightsand thatMitt Romneys going to be the president. The president sets the policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Im comfortable with it because its a good step in the right direction. Ill leave it at that. Romney favors abortion exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger, while Ryan does not. Asked about his co-sponsorship of legislation thatinitiallyused the term "forciblerape," Ryan responded, "that bill passed I think by 251 votes. It was bipartisan. ... Im proud of my pro-life record.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* While Republicans are holding their convention in Tampa next week, Obama will be stumping through the swing states of Iowa, Colorado, and Virginia. The planned visits appear timed to coincide with the start of the fall semester at universities located in the areas he plans to visit.
* Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) says Democrat Elizabeth Warren's attempts to tie him to Akin will fall flat.Apparently shes a little confused as to who she is running against, Brown said. She is running against Scott Brown. I am a pro-choice, independent Republican who has a history of being an independent thinker.
* Romney and Ryan will campaign together in Commerce, Michigan, on Friday.
* The Republican Governors Association has released anew TV adhitting Montana Democratic gubernatorial nominee and Attorney General Steve Bullock for notjoiningthe multi-state lawsuitagainstthe federal health care law. The ad says Republican nominee Rick Hill will "stand up for Montana, and our rights."
THE FIX MIX:
Miniature biking, anyone?
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1192 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 22, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Akin refuses to quit race
BYLINE: Paul Kane
SECTION: A section; Pg. A06
LENGTH: 1280 words
The Republican political establishment drew closer to a confrontation with some in the party's Christian conservative wing Tuesday as Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri chose defiance over surrender, refusing to step aside as the GOP nominee for Senate.
Akin, whose controversial comments Sunday about "legitimate rape" and pregnancy set off a firestorm inside the party, said he intends to rally conservatives to a campaign focused on abortion, an issue he said was being ignored by the leadership of both major parties. The escalation came as GOP leaders met in Tampa ahead of next week's presidential nominating convention. They adopted a broad antiabortion position that was silent on whether exceptions should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, the issues that set off the Akin controversy.
Missouri's Republican Senate primary already served to pit several conservative constituencies against one another, as Christian evangelical leaders backed Akin and hard-line anti-spending conservatives supported his opponents.
Mitt Romney, the GOP's presidential standard-bearer, joined a broad chorus of Republicans urging Akin to step aside for the good of his party. "Todd Akin's comments were offensive and wrong, and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country," Romney said.But after two days of apologizing, Akin grew angry Tuesday, allowing a deadline to pass on an easier way to withdraw from the contest. The congressman made clear that he would not apologize for his belief that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape.
"I misspoke one word in one sentence in one day," he said on a radio talk show hosted by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. "I haven't done anything that's morally and ethically wrong."
Tuesday evening, Akin tweeted: "I am #stillstanding. Will you stand with me?" He included a link to an online donation site.
The controversy began Sunday when a St. Louis television station aired an interview in which Akin was asked about his opposition to abortion, even if a woman becomes pregnant after being raped. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," he responded, adding that even if the woman became pregnant, "the punishment ought to be of the rapist and not attacking the child."
The reaction from the Republican establishment was swift, and by Tuesday calls for Akin to step aside had increased from a trickle to a deluge.
Immediately after his appearance on Huckabee's show, party leaders who had been sending Akin signals to quit the race left no doubt about where they stood.
"When the future of our country is at stake, sorry is not sufficient. To continue serving his country in the honorable way he has served throughout his career, it is time for Congressman Akin to step aside," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).
A few hours later, Romney issued his statement calling on Akin to drop out. He was followed by Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who reaffirmed plans to abandon a $5 million campaign for Akin. "If he continues with this misguided campaign, it will be without the support and resources of the NRSC," said Brian Walsh, an NRSC spokesman.
The internal GOP debate over Akin has buoyed the hopes of Democrats, who acknowledged that Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) was probably the most endangered Democratic incumbent seeking reelection this year. A McCaskill victory would present a much steeper hill for Republicans hoping to gain four seats to take majority control of the Senate.
And some GOP insiders worry that an Akin insurgency campaign could become a rallying point for antiabortion forces and a high-profile subject of division within the party's base, maybe as soon as next week's Republican National Convention, which is supposed to be a time of unity.
Economic vs. social issues
Party leaders had hoped that the Akin matter would be resolved well in advance of the meeting in Tampa so that the abortion issue would not be a sideshow to Romney's coronation. Throughout the spring and early summer, when the campaign focused on President Obama's stewardship of the economy, Romney advanced in the polls. But back in the winter, when the GOP primary tilted toward social issues, Obama edged ahead of his rivals.
This week, as more than 100 party officials gathered before the convention to map out the Republican platform, abortion took center stage. The platform committee adopted a proposal Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment protecting "human life" - a broad antiabortion stance that says nothing about whether exceptions should be allowed in cases of rape and incest. Democrats labeled it the "Akin plank." The staunchest opponents of abortion, led by the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins and the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, said they remained behind Akin's candidacy Tuesday.
"Todd Akin . . . has a record of voting to protect human life," Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement. He "has been an excellent partner in the fight for the unborn."
Akin's defiance of Republican leaders in Washington and Missouri is the latest test of the clout of the GOP's once-powerful establishment, which for more than two years has jousted with its base of conservative activists. To some extent, the powerlessness reflects the establishment's failure in a string of 2010 Senate primaries to secure nominations for candidates it backed. That led to several embarrassing losses in the general election and a decision this year to stay out of contested primaries.
With Tuesday's deadline passed, Akin now has until Sept. 25, should he reverse course, to petition the courts to remove his name from the ballot and replace it with that of another Republican, who would be selected by party leaders.
Cutting off campaign cash
Drying up Akin's financial support may be the last card GOP leaders have left to play. He raised a little more than $2 million before the Aug. 7 primary, most of which was spent in the three-way race, from which he emerged with a plurality victory of 36 percent.
Besides the NRSC pulling its financial support, McConnell and Cornyn have cancelled plans to fete Akin at a Sept. 19 fundraiser in Washington with roughly a dozen GOP senators on hand, according to a senior NRSC aide.
It's unclear that such political pressure can work on Akin, a six-term congressman from the St. Louis suburbs. In his House career, he has never been particularly close to party leaders such as Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) or Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.). He serves on the Armed Services Committee and is a proud advocate of earmarking funds for local projects, despite GOP leaders' opposition to the now-banned practice.
As a member of the Budget Committee, chaired by the party's vice-presidential pick, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), Akin has regularly voted with a rump caucus of conservatives who think Ryan's austere budget would not go far enough in cutting government spending.
His campaign team does not consist of seasoned GOP operatives and is instead run by his son.
Sen. Roy Blunt, the most powerful Republican in Missouri, issued a statement along with three former GOP senators calling for Akin to stand down his candidacy.
Instead, Akin launched an ad campaign that is partly an apology but mostly a defense of his antiabortion views. "The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness," he says in the ad.
kanep@washpost.com
Rosalind S. Helderman in Tampa contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1193 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 22, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Lessons on the fairer sex
BYLINE: Kathleen Parker
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 758 words
Some days Mitt Romney must wonder how he got involved with this crew. Here he's trying to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs - and his political colleagues keep changing the subject to a topic about which an alarming few seem to know anything at all: women.
Specifically, women's plumbing.
Introductions are no longer necessary for the formerly obscure Missouri congressman Todd Akin, who had hoped to snatch Democrat Claire McCaskill's Senate seat. For those who didn't pay their cable bill, Akin recently assured Americans that, in cases of "legitimate rape," women don't get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." To think that we've overlooked this fail-safe method of birth control. More legitimate rape; fewer unwanted children. It has a certain Talibanesque ring to it.
All Hades broke loose, one is grateful to note, despite Akin's lame attempts at penitence. From Romney to Karl Rove, condemnation of Akin's remarks was stern, with many calling for him to step out of the race. Yet even Akin's apology and self-correction were mealy-mouthed and lacking in, shall we say, remorse born of clarity.
In a hastily constructed ad released Tuesday, Akin tried to organize his thoughts: "Rape is an evil act," he said, apparently appealing to those who still weren't sure. "I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. . . . I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. I pray for them." Of course words were never the problem. The "thinking" was the problem. Akin's belief that legitimate rape so scrambles the female's signals that even biology is thwarted was born of conversations he says he had with doctors. Akin at least should surrender the names of those doctors so that they can be removed from the practice of medicine. For those still confused, raped women do get pregnant, which is why many who are strongly pro-life nevertheless allow abortion exceptions for rape victims. Even so, the Republican Party platform calls for a "human life" amendment to the Constitution that, strictly applied, likely would prohibit any abortion under any circumstances.
Akin's gift to Democrats wasn't just a probable campaign killer for him personally. It also reminded critics that Akin once co-sponsored legislation with Paul Ryan redefining rape as "forcible" versus, what, voluntary? To be fair, there is a difference between morning-after remorse that some call "rape" and rape as most understand it. But for these purposes, as President Obama said, "Rape is rape." Does a raped woman need bruises to qualify for an abortion? More broadly, Akin's comments furthered the perception that Republicans are waging a war on women.
The gender gap exists for a reason.
Whether mandating transvaginal probes prior to abortion under "informed-consent" logic or misunderstanding basic biology, Republicans have managed to alienate a fair portion of the female population. Even pro-life women will have a hard time standing by men who are so willfully ignorant.
These episodes not only are embarrassing, but they also shift debate from the profound to the ridiculous.
One Catholic strategist close to GOP anti-abortion discussions put it this way to me: "Any politician is an idiot if he cannot speak eloquently on the tragedy of abortion, with compassion for women and a sense of recognition also for the life of the child. . . . Akin does a disservice to the cause of educating Americans about the humanity of the unborn child. Honestly, though, he is the exception."
Perhaps so, but the cumulative effect of Republican actions aimed at limiting women's access to abortion rather than seeking remedy through education poses an existential threat to the GOP. You don't change people's hearts by insulting their minds.
As GOP convention planners consider platforms and pledges, they might also contemplate a seminar for Republican men about how the fairer sex works. Recognizing that attendance could be humiliating, they could put a brown wrapper around it (note to Akin supporters: this is a metaphor) and call it something deceptively innocuous, such as: "Golf and Skinny-Dipping, from the Sea of Galilee to the Gulf of Mexico."
Once attendees are seated, Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore, recently named the first women members of Augusta National Golf Club, could conduct a PowerPoint presentation of the female reproductive system.
Given the likelihood of a large audience, the GOP might need a bigger tent than usual.
kathleenparker@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1194 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 22, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
BYLINE: Jennifer Rubin
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 380 words
What Obama could do
Despite President Obama's denial Monday that he is being negative or that he was responsible for the Joe Soptic ad, the public knows how overwhelmingly negative the Obama ad assault and campaign have been.
Perhaps Democrats shy away from embracing their negativity because they know how bad they would sound. (Sure, we are tearing down Mitt Romney on whatever we can find!) Or perhaps they insist that it's the other guy who debased the debate because they fear the reaction of independent voters.
But if the president really wanted to raise the debate, is there anything he could do? Well, he could fire Stephanie Cutter, his deputy campaign manager. (Throwing overboard aides who merely followed directions is a tried-and-true political tactic.) He could denounce the Soptic ad, which was run by the Obama-supporting Priorities USA super PAC. He could introduce his own reforms on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He could even embrace the Simpson-Bowles budget recommendations. It's not too late for this - and certainly this would dispel notions that the president is unserious about the fiscal debt, unwilling to take on his own party and interested only in expanding the size of government.
Obama could even undo the damage wrought by his welfare maneuver. (Blogger Mickey Kaus has some good suggestions, including "Have Obama argue that the new waivers were justified but regret that they weren't adopted with the bipartisan consultation he thinks would produce a reasonable consensus around the need for a modest amount of state-by-state flexibility and experimentation." Kaus also recommended that Obama should have the secretary of health and human services "withdraw the rules until they can be negotiated in 2013 with Congressional Republicans." This, Kaus noted, would allow Obama to say that "the work requirements are not, in fact, eroded.")
Ultimately, I don't think Obama wants to do any of that. The president has spent no time developing far-sighted policies, and he is determined to prove that he can turn out his base with fire-and-brimstone speeches and attack ads. This is precisely the sort of pol Obama warned us about in 2008. His spinners will have to live with that reality.
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1195 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 22, 2012 Wednesday 6:50 PM EST
Seniors <3 Paul Ryan;
By a 50 percent to 35 percent margin, seniors say they like Paul Ryan, despite Democratic attacks on his Medicare plan.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 982 words
Grandma isn't scared of Paul Ryan.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows 41 percent of Americans view the new GOP vice presidential nominee favorably, while 37 percent rate him unfavorably - slightly improved from last week's polling.
Among seniors, though, the numbers are even better for Ryan: 50 percent favorable and 35 percent unfavorable. Fully one-third of seniors say they have a strongly favorable view of the Wisconsin congressman, while one-quarter have a strongly unfavorable view.
The numbers suggest Democrats' attempts to turn Ryan's Medicare proposal against the GOP haven't stuck yet among the most pivotal group: seniors. If a Medicare attack was working, after all, seniors would likely be the first group to start deserting Ryan.
Ryan's Medicare plan, of course, isn't designed to affect current seniors; it would turn the entitlement into a voucher program for future beneficiaries, starting in 2023. But that doesn't mean Democrats haven't tried to use it for leverage with elderly voters - a reliable and important voting group in the 2012 election - and one that generally favors the GOP.
Democrats initially hailed Ryan's selection as a game-changer in senior-heavy districts and states like Florida, and they've been pushing hard the message that it would "end Medicare as we know it" and could lead to an additional $6,000 in out-of-pocket costs for seniors (without specifying that it's future seniors, of course).
His plan...would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health-care costs to seniors, President Obama said after Ryan's selection was announced. A recent Obama campaign ad makes the same claim.
A left-leaning group has even run an ad in Wisconsin that featureda faux Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound elderly woman off a cliff.
Republicans, meanwhile, have pushed back hard and emphasized that current seniors would not be affected. Ryan even appeared during a campaign event in Florida with his mother and drove home that position.
"Our plan does not affect the benefits for people who are in or near retirement. It's a promise that was made, and it's a promise that must be kept," Ryan said at the event with his mother.
Polling still shows that Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program is an unpopular idea; a Pew poll on Tuesday shows 34 percent of American adults favor the plan, while 49 percent oppose it.
(We should also note that just 30 percent say they've heard a lot about the plan, so it's not like this issue is done being litigated.)
But at least for now, the Medicare plan is not scaring seniors away from Ryan, and that's both a welcome sign for Republicans and a testament to their early messaging on Medicare.
Obama leads in NBC/WSJ poll:A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Obama leading Romney 48 percent to 44 percent.
The poll shows voters continue to process negative information about Romney, with 44 percent saying what they've heard in recent weeks has made them feel more negative toward Romney, as opposed to 32 percent who said it has made them feel more positive. Overall, Romney's favorable/unfavorable split is 38/44.
On the congressional ballot, voters say they would prefer Democrats to control Congress by a 47 percent to 42 percent margin. That's up from a one-point Democratic advantage last month. The GOP brand remains significantly worse than the Democratic brand.
Democratic convention announces new speakers: The Democratic National Convention has announced a slate of women to speak in Charlotte in two weeks.
The new additions:
Race to face Barrow close: The GOP primary to face Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.) was down to the wire Tuesday night.
State Rep. Lee Anderson led businessman Rick Allen by 153 votes with 97 percent of precincts reporting, according to AP results.The winner will face Barrow in a district that GOP state lawmakers redrew to be much more Republican. Barrow is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the country.
In other runoffs Tuesday in Georgia, state Rep. Doug Collins defeated talk show host Martha Zoller for the GOP nomination in the Republican-leaning new 9th district. Collins is a heavy favorite to win the seat in November.
Zoller was backed by Sarah Palin and other leading conservatives, includingSean Hannity, Herman Cain, Mark Levin and Erick Erickson.
Fixbits:
A new Romney ad makes the case that Obamacare isn't "free health care" and hits Obama for "raiding $716 billion from Medicare."
Romney says he's spending money more wisely than Obama.
Todd Akin has launched a petition to gather support, but the Web page initially included a few misspellings. Oh, and it still includes a fetus.
Ron Paul has reached a deal with Republican National Convention organizers on a dispute over delegates. And Newt Gingrich has released his delegates.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) releases a new Wisconsin Senate ad hitting newly crowned GOP nominee and former governor Tommy Thompson for not releasing tax returns.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is up with an independent expenditure ad in Montana hitting Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) for voting for pay raises for himself while voting against minimum wage increases.
Sen. Maria Cantwell's(D-Wash.) GOP opponent swears at a reporter, apologizes, and then retracts the apology. What got him so steamed? Questions about Akin.
A PAC associated with the Democratic Governors Association is going up with its second ad of the Montana governor's race.
Must-reads:
"Akin comments expose GOP rift over abortion" - Ed O'Keefe and Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post
"Patients Would Pay More if Romney Restores Medicare Savings, Analysts Say" - Jackie Calmes, New York Times
"Independents favor cooperation, are dissatisfied with political system" - Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, Washington Post
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1196 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 22, 2012 Wednesday 12:43 PM EST
Ad watch: Romney pushes Medicare attack again;
New Romney ad focus on Medicare.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 37 words
Mitt Romney, "Nothing's Free":
What it says: "Obama is raiding $716 billion from Medicare, changing the program forever.
What it means:Obama is the one cutting Medicare, not us.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1197 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 22, 2012 Wednesday 12:41 PM EST
Ad watch: Obama asks about the children;
New Obama ad focuses on classroom size.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 56 words
President Obama, "Children":
What it says: "Mitt Romney says classroom sizes don't matter and he supports Paul Ryan's budget which could cut education by 20 percent."
What it means: Romney doesn't care about public education, because he's rich.
Who will see it: Ohio and Virginia.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1198 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 22, 2012 Wednesday
Suburban Edition
Akin refuses to quit race
BYLINE: Paul Kane
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A06
LENGTH: 1264 words
The Republican political establishment drew closer to a confrontation with some in the party's Christian conservative wing Tuesday as Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri chose defiance over surrender, refusing to step aside as the GOP nominee for Senate.
Akin, whose controversial comments Sunday about "legitimate rape" and pregnancy set off a firestorm inside the party, said he intends to rally conservatives to a campaign focused on abortion, an issue he said was being ignored by the leadership of both major parties.
The escalation came as GOP leaders met in Tampaahead of next week's presidential nominating convention. They adopted a broad antiabortion position that was silent on whether exceptions should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, the issues that set off the Akin controversy.
Missouri's Republican Senate primary already served to pit several conservative constituencies against one another, as Christian evangelical leaders backed Akin and hard-line anti-spending conservatives supported his opponents.
Mitt Romney, the GOP's presidential standard-bearer, joined a broad chorus of Republicans urging Akin to step aside for the good of his party. "Todd Akin's comments were offensive and wrong, and he should very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country," Romney said.
But after two days of apologizing, Akin grew angry Tuesday, allowing a deadline to pass on an easier way to withdraw from the contest. The congressman made clear that he would not apologize for his belief that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape.
"I misspoke one word in one sentence in one day," he said on a radio talk show hosted by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. "I haven't done anything that's morally and ethically wrong."
Tuesday evening, Akin tweeted: "I am #stillstanding. Will you stand with me?" He included a link to an online donation site.
The controversy began Sunday when a St. Louis television station aired an interview in which Akin was asked about his opposition to abortion, even if a woman becomes pregnant after being raped. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," he responded, adding that even if the woman became pregnant, "the punishment ought to be of the rapist and not attacking the child."
The reaction from the Republican establishment was swift, and by Tuesday calls for Akin to step aside had increased from a trickle to a deluge.
Immediately after his appearance on Huckabee's show, party leaders who had been sending Akin signals to quit the race left no doubt about where they stood.
"When the future of our country is at stake, sorry is not sufficient. To continue serving his country in the honorable way he has served throughout his career, it is time for Congressman Akin to step aside," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).
A few hours later, Romney issued his statement calling on Akin to drop out. He was followed by Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who reaffirmed plans to abandon a $5 million campaign for Akin. "If he continues with this misguided campaign, it will be without the support and resources of the NRSC," said Brian Walsh, an NRSC spokesman.
The internal GOP debate over Akin has buoyed the hopes of Democrats, who acknowledged that Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) was probably the most endangered Democratic incumbent seeking reelection this year. A McCaskill victory would present a much steeper hill for Republicans hoping to gain four seats to take majority control of the Senate.
And some GOP insiders worry that an Akin insurgency campaign could become a rallying point for antiabortion forces and a high-profile subject of division within the party's base, maybe as soon as next week's Republican National Convention, which is supposed to be a time of unity.
Economic vs. social issues
Party leaders had hoped that the Akin matter would be resolved well in advance of the meeting in Tampa so that the abortion issue would not be a sideshow to Romney's coronation. Throughout the spring and early summer, when the campaign focused on President Obama's stewardship of the economy, Romney advanced in the polls. But back in the winter, when the GOP primary tilted toward social issues, Obama edged ahead of his rivals.
This week, as more than 100 party officials gathered before the convention to map out the Republican platform, abortion took center stage. The platform committee adopted a proposal Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment protecting "human life" - a broad antiabortion stance that says nothing about whether exceptions should be allowed in cases of rape and incest. Democrats labeled it the "Akin plank."
The staunchest opponents of abortion, led by the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins and the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, said they remained behind Akin's candidacy Tuesday.
"Todd Akin . . . has a record of voting to protect human life," Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement. He "has been an excellent partner in the fight for the unborn."
Akin's defiance of Republican leaders in Washington and Missouri is the latest test of the clout of the GOP's once-powerful establishment, which for more than two years has jousted with its base of conservative activists. To some extent, the powerlessness reflects the establishment's failure in a string of 2010 Senate primaries to secure nominations for candidates it backed. That led to several embarrassing losses in the general election and a decision this year to stay out of contested primaries.
With Tuesday's deadline passed, Akin now has until Sept. 25, should he reverse course, to petition the courts to remove his name from the ballot and replace it with that of another Republican, who would be selected by party leaders.
Cutting off campaign cash
Drying up Akin's financial support may be the last card GOP leaders have left to play. He raised a little more than $2 million before the Aug. 7 primary, most of which was spent in the three-way race, from which he emerged with a plurality victory of 36 percent.
Besides the NRSC pulling its financial support, McConnell and Cornyn have cancelled plans to fete Akin at a Sept. 19 fundraiser in Washington with roughly a dozen GOP senators on hand, according to a senior NRSC aide.
It's unclear that such political pressure can work on Akin, a six-term congressman from the St. Louis suburbs. In his House career, he has never been particularly close to party leaders such as Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) or Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.). He serves on the Armed Services Committee and isa proud advocate of earmarking funds for local projects, despite GOP leaders' opposition to the now-banned practice.
As a member of the Budget Committee, chaired by the party's vice-presidential pick, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), Akin has regularly voted with a rump caucus of conservatives who think Ryan's austere budget would not go far enough in cutting government spending.
His campaign team does not consist of seasoned GOP operatives and is instead run by his son.
Sen. Roy Blunt, the most powerful Republican in Missouri, issued a statement along with three former GOP senators calling for Akin to stand down his candidacy.
Instead, Akin launched an ad campaign that is partly an apology but mostly a defense of his antiabortion views. "The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness," he says in the ad.
kanep@washpost.com
Rosalind S. Helderman in Tampa contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1199 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 22, 2012 Wednesday
Regional Edition
Lessons on the fairer sex
BYLINE: Kathleen Parker
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 751 words
Some days Mitt Romney must wonder how he got involved with this crew. Here he's trying to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs - and his political colleagues keep changing the subject to a topic about which an alarming few seem to know anything at all: women.
Specifically, women's plumbing.
Introductions are no longer necessary for the formerly obscure Missouri congressman Todd Akin, who had hoped to snatch Democrat Claire McCaskill's Senate seat. For those who didn't pay their cable bill, Akin recently assured Americans that, in cases of "legitimate rape," women don't get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
To think that we've overlooked this fail-safe method of birth control. More legitimate rape; fewer unwanted children. It has a certain Talibanesque ring to it.
All Hades broke loose, one is grateful to note, despite Akin's lame attempts at penitence. From Romney to Karl Rove, condemnation of Akin's remarks was stern, with many calling for him to step out of the race. Yet even Akin's apology and self-correction were mealy-mouthed and lacking in, shall we say, remorse born of clarity.
In a hastily constructed ad released Tuesday, Akin tried to organize his thoughts: "Rape is an evil act," he said, apparently appealing to those who still weren't sure. "I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. . . . I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. I pray for them."
Of course words were never the problem. The "thinking" was the problem. Akin's belief that legitimate rape so scrambles the female's signals that even biology is thwarted was born of conversations he says he had with doctors. Akin at least should surrender the names of those doctors so that they can be removed from the practice of medicine. For those still confused, raped women do get pregnant, which is why many who are strongly pro-life nevertheless allow abortion exceptions for rape victims. Even so, the Republican Party platform calls for a "human life" amendment to the Constitution that, strictly applied, likely would prohibit any abortion under any circumstances.
Akin's gift to Democrats wasn't just a probable campaign killer for him personally. It also reminded critics that Akin once co-sponsored legislation with Paul Ryan redefining rape as "forcible" versus, what, voluntary? To be fair, there is a difference between morning-after remorse that some call "rape" and rape as most understand it. But for these purposes, as President Obama said, "Rape is rape." Does a raped woman need bruises to qualify for an abortion?
More broadly, Akin's comments furthered the perception that Republicans are waging a war on women.
The gender gap exists for a reason.
Whether mandating transvaginal probes prior to abortion under "informed-consent" logic or misunderstanding basic biology, Republicans have managed to alienate a fair portion of the female population. Even pro-life women will have a hard time standing by men who are so willfully ignorant.
These episodes not only are embarrassing, but they also shift debate from the profound to the ridiculous.
One Catholic strategist close to GOP anti-abortion discussions put it this way to me: "Any politician is an idiot if he cannot speak eloquently on the tragedy of abortion, with compassion for women and a sense of recognition also for the life of the child. . . . Akin does a disservice to the cause of educating Americans about the humanity of the unborn child. Honestly, though, he is the exception."
Perhaps so, but the cumulative effect of Republican actions aimed at limiting women's access to abortion rather than seeking remedy through education poses an existential threat to the GOP. You don't change people's hearts by insulting their minds.
As GOP convention planners consider platforms and pledges, they might also contemplate a seminar for Republican men about how the fairer sex works. Recognizing that attendance could be humiliating, they could put a brown wrapper around it (note to Akin supporters: this is a metaphor) and call it something deceptively innocuous, such as: "Golf and Skinny-Dipping, from the Sea of Galilee to the Gulf of Mexico."
Once attendees are seated, Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore, recently named the first women members of Augusta National Golf Club, could conduct a PowerPoint presentation of the female reproductive system.
Given the likelihood of a large audience, the GOP might need a bigger tent than usual.
kathleenparker@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1200 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 22, 2012 Wednesday
Regional Edition
BYLINE: Jennifer Rubin
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 371 words
What Obama could do
Despite President Obama's denial Monday that he is being negative or that he was responsible for the Joe Soptic ad, the public knows how overwhelmingly negative the Obama ad assault and campaign have been.
Perhaps Democrats shy away from embracing their negativity because they know how bad they would sound. (Sure, we are tearing down Mitt Romney on whatever we can find!) Or perhaps they insist that it's the other guy who debased the debate because they fear the reaction of independent voters.
But if the president really wanted to raise the debate, is there anything he could do? Well, he could fire Stephanie Cutter, his deputy campaign manager. (Throwing overboard aides who merely followed directions is a tried-and-true political tactic.) He could denounce the Soptic ad, which was run by the Obama-supporting Priorities USA super PAC. He could introduce his own reforms on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He could even embrace the Simpson-Bowles budget recommendations. It's not too late for this - and certainly this would dispel notions that the president is unserious about the fiscal debt, unwilling to take on his own party and interested only in expanding the size of government.
Obama could even undo the damage wrought by his welfare maneuver. (Blogger Mickey Kaus has some good suggestions, including "Have Obama argue that the new waivers were justified but regret that they weren't adopted with the bipartisan consultation he thinks would produce a reasonable consensus around the need for a modest amount of state-by-state flexibility and experimentation." Kaus also recommended that Obama should have the secretary of health and human services "withdraw the rules until they can be negotiated in 2013 with Congressional Republicans." This, Kaus noted, would allow Obama to say that "the work requirements are not, in fact, eroded.")
Ultimately, I don't think Obama wants to do any of that. The president has spent no time developing far-sighted policies, and he is determined to prove that he can turn out his base with fire-and-brimstone speeches and attack ads. This is precisely the sort of pol Obama warned us about in 2008. His spinners will have to live with that reality.
LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1201 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 21, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
G.O.P. Is Pressing Candidate To Quit Over Rape Remark
BYLINE: By JONATHAN WEISMAN and JOHN ELIGON; Jonathan Weisman reported from Washington, and John Eligon from Kansas City, Mo. Katharine Q. Seelye contributed reporting from Boston.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1153 words
WASHINGTON -- Fearing that a seat crucial to winning a Senate majority could slip away, the national Republican establishment on Monday unleashed a furious campaign to drive Representative Todd Akin, the party's newly selected nominee, out of the race against Missouri's Democratic senator.Amid an uproar over provocative comments on rape and abortion that Mr. Akin made in an interview broadcast on Sunday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee declared that it would withdraw financial and organizational support for Mr. Akin, including $5 million in advertising already reserved for the fall. In the interview, Mr. Akin said victims of ''legitimate rape'' rarely got pregnant.
Crossroads GPS, a Republican advocacy group that had already spent more than $5 million to weaken Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, considered the Senate's most endangered incumbent, announced that it was withdrawing from the state.
At the same time, Republican candidates like Mitt Romney and Senator Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts either called for Mr. Akin to step aside or strongly indicated that he should. In a radio interview, the conservative host Sean Hannity pleaded with Mr. Akin to drop out. ''Sometimes an election is bigger than one person,'' he said.
But Mr. Akin said on Monday that he would not drop out. ''I'm not a quitter,'' he said on Mike Huckabee's radio program. ''My belief is we're going to take this thing forward, and by the grace of God, we're going to win this race.''
Mr. Akin also backtracked on his comments. ''Rape is never legitimate,'' he said. ''It's an evil act that's committed by violent predators. I used the wrong words in the wrong way.''
He added: ''I also know that people do become pregnant from rape. I didn't mean to imply that that wasn't the case.''
But Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the Senate campaign committee, personally asked Mr. Akin to step aside, a senior Republican Senate campaign aide said.
''Over the next 24 hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service,'' Mr. Cornyn said in a statement.
President Obama, after weeks of steering clear of the White House press corps, stepped to the lectern at the White House to weigh in. ''Rape is rape,'' he declared.
The furor over Mr. Akin's comments showed the sensitivity that social issues still hold for Republicans as they seek to narrow their deficit with women ahead of the November elections, even as Democrats work to showcase what they portray as extreme positions by Republican candidates on issues important to women.
The strong response also indicated the centrality that Ms. McCaskill's seat has assumed in the Republican game plan to retake the Senate in November. Republicans learned a difficult lesson in 2010, when impolitic conservative nominees in Delaware, Nevada and Colorado fumbled Senate seats that Republicans had counted on and allowed the Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Besides the Nebraska seat of Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat who is retiring, no seat was considered a safer take-away than the one in Missouri as the Republicans look for a net gain of four to win Senate control.
Republican campaign officials said the coordinated effort to push Mr. Akin out of the race was in part a result of a tight deadline that the party faces. If Mr. Akin drops out by 5 p.m. Tuesday, the Missouri Republican central committee will be free to choose a replacement for the November ballot. He still could quit anytime before Sept. 25, but if he waits, his withdrawal could be challenged by the Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan, a Democrat. Also, once the statewide ballot is printed, probably early next month, Mr. Akin would be liable for paying for any reprinting of the ballot if he withdrew.
While Republicans at the national level were in a hurry to shove him aside, Republican opinion had not hardened against Mr. Akin in Missouri, in part because of the salience of the abortion issue. ''The congressman is totally, firmly, solidly pro-life,'' Sharon Barnes, a member of the state Republican central committee, said, adding that Mr. Akin believed ''that abortion is never an option.''
Ms. Barnes echoed Mr. Akin's statement that very few rapes resulted in pregnancy, adding that ''at that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don't kill it.''
''That's more what I believe he was trying to state,'' she said. ''He just phrased it badly.''
Ms. Barnes said that she believed that the controversy would blow over, and that once people in the state became more familiar with Mr. Akin, they would learn ''what a great, conservative, godly man Todd Akin is, and they'll put his comment in its proper context.''
On Monday afternoon, well after his financial supporters had threatened to withdraw, Mr. Akin took to Twitter to declare: ''I am in this race to win. We need a conservative Senate.'' The post included a Web link for donors to contribute to a campaign that was already running on vapors and was heavily dependent on outside support, especially from Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Karl Rove.
On Mr. Huckabee's radio program, Mr. Akin apologized for the wording of his comments, but he did not back away from his belief that abortion should be illegal in all instances, including pregnancies resulting from rape.
''I've made a couple of serious mistakes that were just wrong, and I need to apologize for those,'' he said on the program.
Mr. Akin had told a Missouri television interviewer on Sunday, ''If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,'' suggesting that rape victims are rarely impregnated.
Mr. Akin was never the favored party candidate to go up against Ms. McCaskill, who financed campaign commercials intended to help him in the primary this month. Republicans feared that he would be reluctant to be too negative against her, and some also privately feared the very sort of misstep they saw Mr. Akin make, providing Ms. McCaskill with an escape hatch.
The Republican establishment largely lined up behind John Brunner, a businessman, and Sarah Steelman, a former Missouri state treasurer, who in turn attacked Mr. Akin aggressively. Mr. Akin does not believe he owes the party establishment anything, Republicans concede.
Democrats piled onto Mr. Akin's comments, seeking to tar the entire Republican Party with an assertion that even many conservative Republicans called indefensible. Ms. McCaskill used national and state television appearances to press her opinion that her opponent is well outside Missouri's mainstream. Mr. Obama jumped at the chance to weigh in.
''What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women,'' he said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/republicans-decry-todd-akins-rape-remarks.html
LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Representative Todd Akin (A1)
Representative Todd Akin in Sedalia, Mo., on Thursday. He said he would stay in the race. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ORLIN WAGNER/ASSOCIATED PRESS) (A13)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1202 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 21, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Romney Racks Up a Big Campaign Cash Advantage Over Obama
BYLINE: By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and DEREK WILLIS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 695 words
Mitt Romney's cash advantage over President Obama and the Democrats more than doubled in July, as intense Republican fund-raising and heavy spending by Mr. Obama and his allies left Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee with $62 million more in the bank than the Democrats at the end of last month.
Mr. Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee spent $91 million in July, significantly more than the $75 million the Democrats raised, underscoring the investments Mr. Obama made in technology and field staff as well as nearly $40 million his campaign spent on advertising that month. While Mr. Romney continued to husband his resources for the fall -- he spent less than half of what Mr. Obama did on advertising -- conservative ''super PACs'' and other outside groups stepped into the breach, spending millions of dollars on ads attacking Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats raised a combined $75 million during July, according to Federal Election Commission reports filed Monday, compared with $101 million for Mr. Romney and the Republicans. The Democrats had about $124 million in cash on hand, most of it in Mr. Obama's campaign account, while the Republicans had $186 million.
It is not unusual for challengers to outraise incumbents late in the campaign, and while Mr. Obama is being outraised now, he raised far more than Mr. Romney through 2011 and early this year.
But Mr. Romney's extraordinary two-month run raising money -- his team has pulled in more than $200 million in June and July -- makes it virtually certain that Mr. Obama will not leave the Democratic convention next month with the cash advantage he had four years ago, when he heavily outspent the Republican candidate, John McCain, on his way to victory in November. The July totals do not include what Romney campaign officials said was a boost in both small online donations and large checks after Mr. Romney selected Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate.
Mr. Obama's campaign has had to spend heavily on its vaunted grass-roots infrastructure, posting $3 million in payroll costs in July. Mr. Romney has begun to catch up in swing states, showing rent and utility payments in Florida, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and elsewhere beyond its Massachusetts headquarters.
Mr. Romney's campaign also spent close to $500 at an Atlanta Chick-fil-A on July 23, billing it as a ''meeting expense.'' The day before, Mike Huckabee, the radio show host and former Arkansas governor, had called for evangelical Christians to show support for the fast-food chain after its founder said that he opposed same-sex marriage.
Restore Our Future, the super PAC founded by former Romney campaign aides, reported raising $7.4 million in July, including $2 million from the Texas homebuilder Bob Perry; $120,000 from a Goldman Sachs executive; and $1 million from a holding company tied to the billionaire Ira Rennert.
Four companies based at the business address of H. Gary Morse, a wealthy Florida real estate developer and Romney backer, gave a combined $250,000 to the super PAC. Mr. Morse's The Villages retirement community was the site of Mr. Ryan's campaign stop on Saturday.
Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing Mr. Obama, raised $4.8 million and ended July with $4.2 million in cash on hand.
American Crossroads, the major super PAC backing Mr. Romney and the Senate Republicans, raised $7.7 million in July and spent $9.1 million, ending the month with $29.5 million in cash.
But the biggest outside spenders in the advertising battle are tax-exempt groups that do not have to disclose their donors. In the last 30 days, Americans for Prosperity, founded by the billionaire industrial executives Charles and David Koch, has spent at least $14 million on ads against Mr. Obama, F.E.C. records show. Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a nondisclosing affiliate of American Crossroads, spent more than $16 million, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks ad spending.
PHOTO: President Obama at a White House news briefing on Monday. His campaign and the Democrats spent $91 million in July. (PHOTOGRAPH BY LUKE SHARRETT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/romney-racks-up-huge-cash-advantage-over-obama.html
LOAD-DATE: August 24, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1203 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(DealBook)
August 21, 2012 Tuesday
Morning Take-Out
BYLINE: WILLIAM ALDEN
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 2466 words
HIGHLIGHT: Highlights from the DealBook newsletter.
TOP STORIES
Investors in Health Care Seem to Bet on Incumbent | Who is going to win the presidential election? You might want to ask Mark T. Bertolini, Andrew Ross Sorkin writes in the DealBook column. He just bet $5.7 billion on President Obama.
Mr. Bertolini is the chief executive of Aetna, which on Monday agreed to acquire Coventry Health Care, a huge provider of Medicare and Medicaid programs. His $5.7 billion bet makes a lot of sense if you believe that the Affordable Care Act - often referred to as Obamacare - will not be repealed.
Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal the act "on my first day if elected," so any gamble that Obamacare stays intact could be fairly described as a wager that President Obama will remain in office.
At a time when so many in the business community appear to be supporting Mr. Romney, it is telling that some businessmen and investors expect a different result - and are wagering more than rhetoric; they are staking their wallets on it.
DealBook »
Examining the Ponzi Scheme Through the Mind of the Con Artist | Maybe "Ponzi scheme" should have its own spot in the Dewey Decimal System. Along with biographies of the schemers, a growing stack of scholarly references, legal tomes and articles aims to collect knowledge about this age-old crime.
But the latest entry in the category, "The Ponzi Scheme Puzzle: A History and Analysis of Con Artists and Victims" by Tamar Frankel, takes a different approach. While Professor Frankel is a legal scholar who has been on the faculty of the Boston University Law School since 1968, her book explores the psychology of the financial criminals and what makes them tick. She was inspired by a colleague who referred to them as "those mimics of trustworthiness: con artists."
Professor Frankel spoke with DealBook about the mind-set of the con artist, as well as the role that victims and society play. Her conclusions will not comfort Ponzi victims; she faults them for their gullibility and failing to "do their homework." She finds, too, that society has a profound ambivalence toward con artists despite the vicious nature of their crimes - which, she notes, on rare occasions have even included murder. DealBook »
DEAL NOTES
Apple's Record Valuation | Apple's market value rose to $623.52 billion on Monday, the highest valuation ever for a public company, the Bits blog writes. The previous record for market capitalization, $616.34 billion, was set by Microsoft in 1999, at the height of the technology bubble. NEW YORK TIMES BITS
European Central Bank Rejects Speculation About Its Plans | The Continent's central bank issued a rare rebuke in an effort to tamp down speculation that it might act more aggressively to control borrowing costs for countries like Spain, The New York Times reports. "It is absolutely misleading to report on decisions which have not yet been taken," the central bank said. NEW YORK TIMES
Flying Private to Save Time | The private jet industry has not received much love in the aftermath of the financial crisis. But some executives now defend their use of private aircraft for flying to smaller cities. "Commercial air is more cost-efficient, but private is a massive timesaver," Mark Dowley, an executive for a private equity firm, told The New York Times. "I'm very judicious with the private flying time, though, to manage the cost." NEW YORK TIMES
Sign up for the DealBook Newsletter, delivered every morning and afternoon.
Mergers & Acquisitions »
With New Chief, Best Buy Tries to Set Its Own Turnaround | Best Buy, the struggling electronics retailer aiming to turn around its fortunes, announced on Monday that it had hired Hubert Joly, the chief executive of the hospitality company Carlson, as its new leader. Best Buy is scheduled to report earnings on Tuesday, when it is expected to provide more details about its turnaround plans. DealBook »
Glencore Holds Firm on Price for Xstrata | Facing a challenge from a Qatari sovereign wealth fund over the deal to acquire Xstrata, the chief executive of Glencore International appeared exasperated on Tuesday, saying, "If it doesn't happen, it's not the end of the world," DealBook reports. DealBook »
Barclays Discusses a Possible Deal in Africa | Barclays and the Absa Group of South Africa said they were in talks to combine their African units, but noted they were not certain the discussions would lead to a deal, Bloomberg News reports. BLOOMBERG NEWS
Aetna Shares Rise as Investors Applaud Coventry Deal | Shares of Aetna jumped as much as 5 percent on Monday after the company announced its $5.7 billion planned takeover of Coventry Health Care, as investors applauded the move toward more industry consolidation. DealBook »
Greenlight May Have Benefited From Coventry Deal | The hedge fund Greenlight Capital recently disclosed that it bought 6.66 million shares of Coventry in the second quarter, setting it up for a profit of $72 million, Bloomberg News reports. BLOOMBERG NEWS
Details Emerge of Micron's Plan for Elpida Memory | Elpida, the bankrupt Japanese semiconductor maker that is being bought by Micron, will receive about $3.5 billion in support from its acquirer, the Asahi newspaper reported, according to Bloomberg News. BLOOMBERG NEWS
Kinder Morgan to Sell Assets to Tallgrass for $1.8 Billion | Kinder Morgan Energy Partners has agreed to sell some pipeline and processing properties to Tallgrass Energy Partners for about $1.8 billion in cash, in the latest asset sale by the company in the wake of its takeover of the El Paso Corporation. DealBook »
British Phone Company Said to Pursue Sale of Spectrum | Everything Everywhere, the British mobile phone operator, is in advanced talks with Three, a rival network owned by Hutchison Whampoa, to sell part of its spectrum holdings, under pressure from European authorities, The Financial Times reports, citing unidentified people with knowledge of the discussions. FINANCIAL TIMES
Shares of Asian Brewer Soar on Heineken Offer | After Heineken struck a sweetened deal for Asia Pacific Breweries, shares of the Asian brewery rose to a record. REUTERS
INVESTMENT BANKING »I
Citigroup's Chief Challenges Idea of a Breakup | Vikram S. Pandit, the chief executive of Citigroup, appeared to reject an argument by his predecessor, Sanford I. Weill, that big banks should split up. "What's left here is essentially the old Citicorp," he told The Financial Times. "That's a tried and proven strategy. Why did it work? Because it was a strategy based upon operating the business and serving clients and not a strategy based on deal-making. That's the fundamental difference." FINANCIAL TIMES
Financier Gets Nod as One of 2 Women Admitted to Augusta National | Breaking an 80-year-old ban against admitting female members, the Augusta National Golf Club turned to two women with distinguished careers. One is Darla Moore, a former banker turned financier whose negotiating toughness is the stuff of legend. DealBook »
Contrasting Banking Styles Foster Turmoil in Spain | A clash of cultures between the traditional Spanish savings banks, or cajas, and the recent euro-based banking economy "helped bring the country's banking industry to the brink of collapse," The New York Times reports. NEW YORK TIMES
Berkshire Hathaway Said to End a Bet on Municipal Bonds | Warren E. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has terminated credit-default swaps insuring $8.25 billion of municipal debt, ending a bullish bet five years ahead of schedule, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing a regulatory filing and an unidentified person familiar with the transaction. WALL STREET JOURNAL
With Dimon's Record Tarnished, Wall Street Lacks a Champion | No prominent financier has stepped up to replace Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase as the industry's ideological leader in the debate over additional regulation, Bloomberg News writes. BLOOMBERG NEWS
Swiss Banks Face Crisis of Morale | Employees of some Swiss banks are none too pleased that their names were provided to United States officials amid an investigation into possible tax evasion, The Wall Street Journal reports. "The employees feel they are being betrayed," Denise Chervet, general secretary of the Swiss banking personnel association, or ASEB, told the newspaper. WALL STREET JOURNAL
UBS Courts Quantitative Hedge Funds | UBS is starting a unit that combines services from its prime brokerage and direct-execution trading businesses, in an effort to attract clients among quantitative hedge funds, Bloomberg News reports. BLOOMBERG NEWS
Why One Customer Has Stuck With Bank of America | Ann Carrns writes on the Bucks blog in response to readers who questioned her decision to bank with Bank of America: "I'm very busy. The bank's online banking system has worked well over all for me. And inertia is a powerful force in the absence of an imperative to act." NEW YORK TIMES BUCKS
PRIVATE EQUITY »
Setting the Record Straight on Private Equity | Writing in Fortune magazine, Dan Primack clarifies some misconceptions that have cropped up as the private equity industry has become a topic of debate in this year's presidential race. FORTUNE
2 Sovereign Funds Invest in Natural Gas Project | Sovereign wealth funds of China and Singapore have each invested about $500 million in a project by Cheniere Energy Partners to build a plant to prepare liquefied natural gas for export, Reuters reports. REUTERS
Singapore Fund Bids for Hotels Owned by Paulson | The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation has offered $1.5 billion for a bankrupt hotel group owned by the hedge fund Paulson & Company, Reuters reports. REUTERS
K.K.R. to Invest in Chinese Retailer | The private equity firm said it would acquire a stake in Novo Holdco, a Chinese clothing retailer, for $30 million, Reuters reports. REUTERS
HEDGE FUNDS »
Soros Acquires Stake in Manchester United | George Soros, the hedge fund billionaire, has taken a 7.85 percent stake in the Class A shares of the English soccer team, whose stock price has been trading below its initial public offering price of $14. DealBook »
Hedge Fund Clients Request More Money in August | Reuters writes: "Client demands to pull money out of hedge funds rose to their second-highest level this year in August, industry data showed, in a sign some investors may be reassessing these freewheeling portfolios after their performance failed to shine." REUTERS
Mining Firm's Complaint Against Hedge Fund Is Dismissed | A New York State judge threw out a defamation lawsuit filed by the Vancouver-based mining company Silvercorp Metals against the New York hedge fund Anthion Management, which had published documents challenging the mining firm's accounting, Reuters reports. REUTERS
Some Hedge Funders Play for Team Obama | AR Magazine has compiled a list of hedge fund executives who have contributed to the Obama campaign, including James Chanos of Kynikos Associates and Scott Nathan of the Baupost Group. AR MAGAZINE
I.P.O./OFFERINGS »
Thiel Joins Retreat From Facebook | The punishing slide in Facebook's stock since its I.P.O. highlights the difference between two moneymaking cultures: Silicon Valley and Wall Street, The New York Times reports. Although not everyone is running away from the stock, one prominent director and original investor, Peter Thiel, sold more than 20 million shares, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. NEW YORK TIMES
How Instagram Could Have Cut a Better Deal | When negotiating a sale, Instagram's founders could have protected themselves from a decline in Faceook's share value if they had used some common merger tools, the Deal Professor writes. DealBook »
Banks Said to Agree on New I.P.O. Quiet Period | After the JOBS Act loosened restrictions on banks' ability to publish research on companies they take public, banks have tended to adhere to a new "quiet period" of 25 days, the result of an informal agreement, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing unidentified lawyers and bankers. WALL STREET JOURNAL
VENTURE CAPITAL »
A Vaunted Venture Capital Firm Stumbles | Henry Blodget writes in Business Insider that Kleiner Perkins, a longtime titan of the Silicon Valley scene, has recently had a series of setbacks with investments in Facebook, Groupon and Zynga. BUSINESS INSIDER
After Microsoft Deal, Yammer Chief Issues Gloomy Forecast for Silicon Valley's Start-Ups | David O. Sacks, the chief executive of Yammer, who recently sold his business to Microsoft for $1.2 billion, is suddenly bearish on start-ups. On Saturday, he wrote on Facebook: "I think Silicon Valley as we know it may be coming to an end." DealBook »
Video Game Start-Up Goes Under | An ambitious start-up called OnLive fired half its staff and sold its assets to creditors under a plan that left its equity investors with nothing, The Wall Street Journal reports. WALL STREET JOURNAL
LEGAL/REGULATORY »
Regulator Finds Flaws in Audits of Brokerage Firms | The New York Times reports: "The many auditors who inspect the financial statements of brokerage firms appear to be cutting corners and not doing all the work they should do, a worrisome sign after the collapse of the Peregrine Financial Group, a leading commodities brokerage firm, where a fraud had gone undetected for many years." NEW YORK TIMES
The Treasury's Oversimplified View of Its Mortgage Relief Effort | The Treasury Department says the mortgage banks were too messed up to put its plans aimed at preventing foreclosures into effect. But how accurate is this version of history? DealBook »
Hedge Fund Manager Found Guilty of Insider Trading | After less than a day of deliberations, a federal jury found Doug Whitman of Whitman Capital in Menlo Park, Calif., guilty of earning about $1 million in illegal profits trading technology stocks, including Google and Polycom. DealBook »
When the C.E.O. Is Involved in an Insider Trading Case | James V. Mazzo, the chief of Advanced Medical Optics, may have some legal strategies to defend against insider trading charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Peter J. Henning writes in the White Collar Watch column. DealBook »
Treasury Names Chief of Unit That Fights Money Laundering | The Treasury Department named Jennifer Shasky Calvery on Monday as the director of the financial crimes enforcement network, the Treasury unit that combats money laundering and other illicit financial activity. DealBook »
Wrangling Over Terminology in a Mortgage Case | The Wall Street Journal writes: "Exactly what is a subprime mortgage? How a U.S. judge answers that question could determine if three former Freddie Mac executives misled investors about loans backed by the mortgage giant before it sank." WALL STREET JOURNAL
Sign up for the DealBook Newsletter, delivered every morning and afternoon.
LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1204 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 21, 2012 Tuesday
FINAL EDITION
Obama: Push on Romney is legitimate
BYLINE: David Jackson and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4A
LENGTH: 477 words
President Obama defended the tone of his election campaign Monday, contending that issues such as Republican Mitt Romney's refusal to release more tax returns are not "in any way out of bounds."
Answering White House reporters' questions for the first time in two months, Obama said the tough ads run by his Chicago-based campaign are fair in pointing out "sharp differences" between himself and Romney.
"When you look at the campaign we're running, we are focused on the issues and the differences that matter to working families all across America," the president said.
He said Romney's refusal to release more than his 2010 and 2011 tax returns goes against a precedent set by his father, George Romney.
"The American people have assumed that if you want to be president of the United States, that your life is an open book when it comes to things like your finances," Obama said. "I don't think we're being mean by asking him to do what every other presidential candidate has done."
Obama said his campaign had nothing to do with an ad that linked Romney to a woman's death by cancer. That ad was produced by an outside group aligned with his campaign and run by a former White House deputy spokesperson.
In response to a reporter's question about the tone of the campaign, Obama said, "Nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon." Last month, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said discrepancies surrounding Romney's tenure at Bain Capital in Securities and Exchange Commission filings could constitute a "felony."
"The president falsely alleged no one in his campaign had accused Mitt Romney of committing a crime," Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said. "President Obama's failure to stand up to dishonest rhetoric and attacks demonstrates yet again he's diminished the office that he holds."
Obama interrupted White House spokesman Jay Carney's regular briefing to take reporters' questions, noting there had been a drumbeat for him to do so in recent weeks. He had not held a news conference since June 19, when he addressed three reporters' questions at the conclusion of an economic conference.
Pressed about the tone of his campaign, Obama defended his call on Romney to release more tax returns. He noted that the millionaire businessman has disclosed he has "Swiss bank accounts," which are "perfectly legal" but which voters would find to be "relevant information."
"People want to know that everybody's been playing by the same rules, including people who are seeking the highest office in the land," he said.
The policy disputes between himself and Romney include how to fix the economy, Medicare, taxes, energy and education. "That's what I talk about on the campaign," Obama said.
He said Romney approved a campaign ad that falsely accuses Obama of gutting the work rules in the 1996 welfare overhaul.
"You can't make this stuff up," Obama said.
LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1205 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 9:47 PM EST
Scott Brown presses Republicans to be 'more inclusive' on abortion;
The Massachusetts Republican's latest pitch to moderates? Standing up to his own party on abortion.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 561 words
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) urges his party to be "more inclusive" onabortion, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) won't end his Senate campaign, and Vice President Biden will be in Tampa next week when Republicans are holdingtheirconvention.
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Todd Akin: The scariest man in the GOP
A history of campaign apology ads
The welfare debate, and why its back
The Missouri GOPs Todd Akin alternatives
Could Todd Akins gaffe actually help the GOP in Missouri?
Todd Akin asks for forgiveness in new TV ad
Why Congress is so partisan, in two charts
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* Despite continued pressure from within the GOP to drop out of the Missouri Senate race, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said on Mike Huckabee's radio showthat he plans to continue his campaign and that the backlash against him seems likea "little bit of an overreaction. Mitt Romney issued a statement saying he thinks Akin should end his campaign.
* Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) penned a letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preiebus urging moreinclusivenesson the issue of abortion in the party's 2012 platform. "Media reports indicate that the Platform Committee will consider draft language opposing a woman's right to choose and supporting a constitutional amendment banning abortion. I believe this is a mistake because it fails to recognize the views of pro-choice Republicans like myself," Brown wrote.
* President Obama made his 10th visit to to Ohio, where he made a push for support from college students."Putting a college education within reach of working families doesn't seem to be a priority for my opponent," Obama said.
* Former Democratic NationalCommitteechairman Tim Kaine is up with hisfirst TV adin the Virginia Senate race. In the 30-second spot, Kaine touts his record as governor, saying he "worked with both parties to cut Virginias budget by five billion dollars.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Republican politicians won't be the only ones in Tampa during next week's convention. Vice President Bidenwillcampaign in the Tampa area on Aug. 27 and 28.
*At a fundraiser in Houston, Romneytook a jabat the Obama campaign's fundraising burn rate, saying,You perhaps noticed in the paper, were a little wiser in our spending ofdollars than the other side, apparently. Im notmanaging their campaign for them, but were going to spend our moneywisely. Were going to spend it to win.
*Despite previously saying it would disclose Democratic National Convention donors on an "ongoing basis," party officials say they will not release the names of the donors before next month's convention.
* On the same day two Republicans are squaring off in a runoff election for the right to face him in November, vulnerable Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.) has released his first TV ad, in which he points out bothinstancesin which he has disagreed with Obama (cap and trade, trade deals) and an issue on which he agrees with the president (small business tax credits). Barrow, the last white House Democrat in the Deep South, faces a toughreelectionbid followingredistricting.
THE FIX MIX:
Why anyone who wants a job would study lit's a mystery.
With Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1206 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 8:12 PM EST
Obama says his campaign has played fair
BYLINE: David Nakamura;Philip Rucker
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 749 words
President Obama on Monday staunchly defended the tone of his reelection campaign, dismissing criticism that his side has been too negative in attacking Republican rival Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital and demanding that he release more tax returns.
In an impromptu news conference, Obama insisted that he has focused on substantial policy differences, such as jobs and taxes, and that his campaign advertisements have highlighted those divisions without crossing the line of fair play.
"If you look at the overall trajectory of our campaign and the ads that I've approved and are produced by my campaign, you'll see that we point out sharp differences between the candidates, but we don't go out of bounds," Obama told reporters at the White House after interrupting press secretary Jay Carney during the daily briefing.
The White House had not given any prior notice that the president would appear, but pressure has been mounting for Obama to take questions from the national press corps. He fielded questions on the recent killings of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the security situation in Syria and the sluggish U.S. economy. With 21 /2 months remaining before Election Day, the 2012 campaign has been defined by its relentlessly hostile and bitter tone, with both sides engaging in daily attacks that have grown increasingly personal.
On Monday, the two campaigns sparred over Obama's handling of the Afghanistan war. During an appearance in Goffstown, N.H., with Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), his vice presidential pick, Romney told a crowd of 3,000 that the president has neglected to communicate with the American people about the conflict.
"When our men and woman are in harm's way, I expect the president of the United States to address the nation on a regular basis and explain what's happening and why they're there, what the mission is, what its purpose is, how we'll know when it's completed," Romney said. "Other presidents have done this. We haven't heard this president do this."
Romney's charge drew a swift reply from the Obama campaign, which called on Romney to reveal his "secret plan" for managing the war and charged that the Republican challenger has not offered any details. Obama has said he would remove U.S. forces by the end of 2014.
Obama, who ran on a theme of "hope and change" four years ago, has been chided by Republicans, and a few Democratic allies, for the tactics his Chicago-based campaign team has engaged in this cycle.
Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, suggested last month that it may have been a potential felony for Bain, the private-equity firm Romney founded and led, to continue listing him as chief executive in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission three years after he said he left, in 1999. More recently, Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that supports the president, produced a television ad that quotes a former worker of a company that Bain acquired saying his wife died after he was laid off and did not have health care.
Asked about those examples, Obama declared that "nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon." And the president said he does not think Romney is "somehow responsible for the death of the woman that was portrayed in that ad."
"But keep in mind," Obama added, "this is an ad that I didn't approve, I did not produce."
Ryan Williams, a Romney campaign spokesman, said that Obama failed to "stand up to dishonest rhetoric and attacks" from his campaign. The president's stance "demonstrates yet again he's diminished the office that he holds," Williams said.
But Obama said it was Romney who was playing dirty, pointing to ads from the Republican that claimed the Obama administration was granting states waivers of the work requirement for welfare recipients. The White House has said states will get waivers on some welfare rules if they can show that 20 percent more people will find jobs.
"You can't just make stuff up," Obama said.
Asked why his campaign continues to demand that Romney release more of his tax returns - Romney has released his 2010 taxes and is promising to release 2011 soon - Obama said that Americans expect their presidential candidates to be "an open book."
"This isn't sort of overly personal here, guys," Obama said. "This is pretty standard stuff. I don't think we're being mean by asking you to do what every other presidential candidate's done, right?"
nakamurad@washpost.com
ruckerp@washpost.com
Rucker reported from New Hampshire.
LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1207 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 8:12 PM EST
Thrown under the bus
BYLINE: Ruth Marcus
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 796 words
Missouri Republican Todd Akin's remarks about women not becoming pregnant from "legitimate rape" are so self-evidently offensive and ignorant they scarcely require a response. What merits more attention is what the episode exposes about the most fundamental of political instincts: self-preservation. Start with Akin. The six-term congressman now running for the Senate posted a Facebook statement Sunday, explaining that he "misspoke" in making an "off-the-cuff" remark.
Misspoke is when you accidentally introduce your vice presidential running mate as the "next president of the United States." (See both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.) Misspoke is when your mouth gets ahead of your brain. (See Joe Biden, most recently on Republicans putting "y'all back in chains.") Misspoke is a politician's way of never having to say he's sorry, the first cousin to the non-apology apology ("I'm sorry if you were offended").
But suggesting that in situations of "legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" is not misspeaking. It's mis-thinking.
By midday Monday, Akin was in full grovel, appearing on Mike Huckabee's radio show to disavow his remarks without ever managing to explain them. The Romney campaign followed a similar arc. First came the non-denunciation denunciation. On Sunday night, hours after the story broke, the campaign put out a joint statement by Romney and Paul Ryan mildly saying that they "disagree" with Akin's statement and "a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."
Disagreement is when you differ over the proper tax treatment of capital gains income. When an ally comes under assault, the first impulse of politicians of both parties is to circle the political wagons, to concede only as much as politically necessary and not a millimeter more.
Thus the Obama campaign's steadfast - and wrongheaded - refusal to distance itself from an inflammatory ad by an Obama-supporting super PAC insinuating that Romney helped contribute to the death of a laid-off worker's wife.
The second impulse is to throw the offending person under the bus. As the outrage over Akin's remarks mounted, so did the tone of the Romney campaign's rhetoric.
By Monday morning, Romney was telling National Review's Robert Costa that Akin's comments were "insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong," adding, "Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive." After we thought about it for a while.
Then there is the sheer cynicism of Democrats' attitude toward Akin, even predating his rape remarks. In the three-way Missouri GOP primary, Akin was the Democrats' favorite Republican. No surprise there: He was the most conservative of the field and therefore represented Sen. Claire McCaskill's best shot at holding on to her endangered seat.
The cynical twist was that a Democratic super PAC intervened in the primary to try to bolster Akin's chances. Majority PAC, a group allied with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), spent more than $1 million attacking the GOP front-runner, John Brunner. This maneuver isn't unprecedented: The Patriot Majority PAC, run by a former Reid staffer, pulled the same stunt in Reid's own race two years ago, intervening in the Republican primary to help propel tea-party candidate Sharron Angle.
This time around, McCaskill herself seemed to be meddling in the GOP primary, with ads blasting all three Republicans. But her critique of Akin as the "true conservative" in the race and a "crusader against bigger government" appeared designed more to bolster Akin than to hurt him - and it represented the vast majority of McCaskill's spending.
There was McCaskill on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Monday, modestly demurring about whether Akin should withdraw as the nominee.
"It's not my place to decide," she said. "I really think that for the national party to try to come in here and dictate to the Republican primary voters that they're going to invalidate their decision, that would be pretty radical. I think there could be a backlash for the Republicans if they did that."
How nice of McCaskill to care so much about the other party - having helped cherry-pick its nominee.
Contrast McCaskill's tender concern for Missouri's Republican voters with that of Texas Sen. John Cornyn, head of the Republicans' Senate campaign arm, who all but shoved Akin out the door Monday. Cornyn issued a statement calling Akin's remarks "wrong, offensive and indefensible" and urging him to take 24 hours to "carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party." A short time later, Romney was urging the same.
Is it any wonder Americans hate politics?
ruthmarcus@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1208 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 7:06 PM EST
The welfare debate, and why it's back;
Why Democrats and Republicans are still at loggerheads over welfare
BYLINE: Scott Clement
LENGTH: 433 words
With DeLorean-like speed, welfare has jumped to center stage as an election issue after hibernating for more than a decade.
Mitt Romney's initialattackson Obama for allowing state's to propose their own alternatives to thetraditionalwelfare work targets earned four Pinocchios from the Post's Fact Checker. The Obama campaign's responses earned three.
But Romney has produced a new ad on the same issue, begging the question of how much this issue matters (if at all) and why Romney is focusing on it.
A new poll from the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation provides some clues. In the 16 years since Bill Clinton and Republicans joined forces to pass welfare reform, Democrats and Republicans have grown farther apart on the basic question of whether government should try to improve living standards or leave people should take care of themselves.
The survey - conducted July 25 to August 5 among more than 3,000 randomly selected adults - repeated the same question asked in 1996, asking respondents which statement came closer to their view:
1. "The government in Washington should do everything possible to improve the standard of living of all Americans."
2. "This is not the government's responsibility, each person should take care of themselves."
The overall numbers hardly changed at all - 51 percent said government should improve living standards in 1998, 52 percent in 2012. But beneath the surface, Republicans and Democrats were on the move.
Fully 71 percent of Republicans now say "each person should take care of themselves," up from 59 percent in 1998. An even higher percentage of Democrats now say take the opposite view - 76 percent - up 11 points from 1996.
Romney's focus on welfare whose key purpose is to assure a minimum standard of living could energize his party's base, which is much more dubious about the government's role in lending a helping hand.
It also may help cement Obama to a "big government" image in a negative way. Seven in 10 Americans thought Obama preferred a "larger government with more services" in a Washington Post-ABC News poll lastyear. And in a Post-ABC poll last month, independents said by 42 to 20 percent that Obama's views on the "size and role of government" were a major reason oppose him rather than support him (34 percent said they weren't a factor).
There are risks for Romney as well. In pushing the issue, Romney will have to fend off accusations of race baitingand could draw even more focus to his own personal wealth.
No matter how it plays out, it's clear that partisans are even more ripe for the debate as they were in the 1990s.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1209 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 5:41 PM EST
Could Todd Akin's gaffe actually help the GOP in Missouri?;
How the congressman's controversial comments might actually be a net positive for the GOP in the battle for the Senate majority.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 729 words
With a single interview that aired Sunday, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) created a giant political headache for his entire party. But if he ends his Senate bid soon (a big if, considering his apparent willingness to press ahead the last couple of days), hewill deliver a huge dose of political aspirin to the entire GOP.And hiscontroversialcomments might well end up as a net positive for his party's chances to reclaim the Senate majority.
When Akinsaid "legitimate rape" rarely causespregnancy, he not only ensured his wordswoulddominate the news cycle, but also forcedresponses on a sensitive topic from Republicans across the country, the majority of whom swiftly denounced his remarks.
Akin's words are exactlynotwhat the GOP as a whole needs right now - especiallyin the week before it will officially nominate Mitt Romney for president at the Tampa convention - but if the harsh intraparty response to his remarks is enough to force Akin from the Missouri race, the entire chain of events could actually boost the GOP's chances of defeating Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in acritical contest in the larger battle for control of the upper chamber.
Akin was the candidate Democrats wanted to run against well before his remarks about rape and abortion made national news. He had a history of controversial comments, far-rightpoliticalpositions, and a shaky campaign that shook up its staff at the end of last year. MostRepublican strategists with an eye on defeating the vulnerable McCaskillprivatelyacknowledgedthat Akin would be the weakest candidate for the general election, and hoped he did not emerge as the GOP nominee.
But he did. And in the time since he won the Republican nomination to face McCaskill on Aug. 7, Akin has stoked outrage with a claim about rape and pregnancy,called for an end to federal support for the National School Lunch Program, reinforced a prior statement comparing federal student loansto stage 3 cancer, and said civil rights should bere-litigated.
For Akin,controversyis nothing new. Given moreopportunities in the campaign, one could reasonably expect him to make more even more claims that either are not based in fact, are extreme, or are both.
But until his "legitimaterape" comments, Akin hadn't said anything that prompted such a swift national backlash from his own party. His one huge gaffeimmediatelyalienatedhim from mainstream Republicans in a way he had never experienced.
Arguably, a big disaster now for the GOP in Missouri is preferable to a series of smaller scale rough patches heading toward November.Worse yet for the GOP, he could have made a major gaffe after Sept. 25, the point at which it would be too late for him to drop out of the race.
But now, Republicans have a chance to change course. They are applying immense pressure on Akin to get out of the race. If he does so, the GOP state central committee can choose a replacement for him.
No matter who they choose, the GOP could hardly be worse off than it is with Akin. Names mentioned aspossibilities in Missouri circlesinclude businessman John Brunner, Reps. VickyHartzler and Jo Ann Emerson, former state treasurer Sarah Steelman,state Auditor Tom Schweich,and former senator Jim Talent (who says he is not interested), among others.
Indeed, if Akin isreplaced, some social conservatives who support him might no longer begalvanizedto vote. For the GOP, that could be worth the ability to compete for the rest of the electorate. Democrats, meanwhile, could justifiably point to a mess on the Republican side and criticize the party for having to hand pick a nominee after voters selected one that fell flat. But that's a process argument. And process arguments rarely move the needle.
The glaring problem for Republicans right now is that Akin does not at all appear ready to step aside. He released an apology ad Tuesday. He said in media interviews Monday that he plans to continuecampaigning. And he's not a candidate who has a history of listening to advice from the GOP establishment.
If Akin does not drop out, Republicans are left in the worst case scenario. Missouri, long considered a top pickupopportunityfor the GOP, could be the race that prevents Republicans from seizing back the Senatemajority.
Read more from PostPolitics
GOP eyes Tuesday deadline for Akin to withdraw
Independent voters are key. So who are they?
Obama, Romney talk to D.C. magazine about faith
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1210 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 4:50 PM EST
Why Congress is so partisan, in two charts;
Voters in each major political party weigh in on the other party. And the result isn't pretty.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1159 words
If you think there is any hope of bipartisan compromise in today's political environment, we've got a few words for you.
"Bad," "greedy" and "crazy." Those would be three of the top four words Democrats use to describe Republicans.
And "socialist," "idiots," "liars" and our favorite - "suck." Those are a choice few of the top words used by Republicans to describe Democrats.
A new Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll asked survey respondents to describe the opposite political party in one word. And the words they chose say a lot about the polarized nature of the American body politic.
In short: Members of each party basically have nothing good to say about each other.
Here are the words Democrats used to describe Republicans:
And here are the words Republicans used to describe Democrats:
You'll notice that the big words - the words cited most frequently by poll respondents - are almost universally negative. And in the few cases where they're not negative, they're neutral.
In fact, 17 of the top 18 words Republicans use to describe Democrats are clearly negative, and the one that's not - "liberal" - was probably meant pejoratively by many GOPers.
On the Democratic side, there's a little more bipartisan respect - and we emphasize little. The sixth most-cited word is "good," but 12 of the top 14 words are negative. (The other non-negative term to crack the top 14 is the neutral "conservative.")
In reality, it's not terribly surprising. Americans are more and more entrenched in their respective political parties than they have been in a long time.
Poll resultsreleased over the weekend showed that the number of Republicans who describe themselves as "strong partisans" has risen from 41 percent to 65 percent over the last 14 years, while the number of Democrats who say the same of themselves has increased from 45 percent to 62 percent.
In other words, close to two-thirds of people in each party now consider themselves "strong partisans."
And given how they describe each other, perhaps it's not surprising that the people they elect can't seem to get along with the other side either.
Akin no-shows on Piers Morgan: Rep. Todd Akin, who is still beating back calls for him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race, apparently no-showed for an appearance on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Monday.
Morgan, after tweeting that Akin would be his guest, began that program by showing an empty chair and labeling Akin a "gutless little twerp."
He said Akin adviser Rex Elsass agreed to the interview and then pulled out at the last minute.
Morgan also said the Akin's opponent, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), canceled an appearance.
Akin, who has drawn heat for for saying "legitimate rape" rarely causes pregnancy, has until the end of the day Tuesday to voluntarily drop out of the race. After that, it would require a court order - which apparently is unlikely to be a problem - to replace him on the ballot.
Meanwhile,GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has reportedly joined calls for Akin to step aside, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is asking Akin not to come to the GOP convention in Tampa next week. About the only people defending Akin are social conservatives including the Family Research Council and activist Phyllis Schlafly.
Obama website suggests Romney responsible for woman's death: President Obama said at a news conference Monday that a controversial super PAC ad doesn't say Mitt Romney is responsible for a woman's death, but his website makes a similar suggestion.
The verbiage in the ad draws a pretty clear line - even if it doesn't directly state it - between Bain Capital laying off GST Steel worker Joe Soptic and his wife's uninsured death from cancer years later.
Obama's website, meanwhile, links the two as well, as BuzzFeed first reported.
"I worked hard all my life and played by the rules, and they allowed this to happen," the website quotes Soptic saying. It then describes Soptic as a man "whose wife died of lung cancer after he lost his GST health plan."
Really, the website is playing the same game the ad is - linking the two facts without making a statement about causality. But the implication is clear.
And this will probably prolong an issue that was already a headache for Team Obama, which has steadfastly declined to criticize the ad.
Election Day in Georgia, Wyoming: Voters head to the polls to decide the winners of three Peach State congressional primary runoffs, including one in Georgia's 12th District, where Rep. John Barrow, the last white Democrat in the House from the Deep South, faces a tough reelection campaign in a very conservative district in the fall.
State Rep. Lee Anderson, whoreceivedthe most votes in the late July primary, will try to hold off businessman Rick Allen, who has poured over $500,000 of his own money into the campaign. Regardless of the outcome, Barrow, a Blue Dog Democrat, will have to win on Republican-friendly turf in November.
Elsewhere, Georgia's 2nd district GOP runoff will decide who Rep. Sanford Bishop (D) faces in amajority-blackdistricthe is expected to hold, while a runoff in the newly created 9th district will decide theRepublicannominee for a seat the party is expected to win.
Fixbits:
A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows Romney leads by three points nationally, but Obama leads by two points in swing states.
The top super PAC devoted to supporting Romney, Restore Our Future,raised $7.5 million and spent $8.2 million in July.
The Romney campaign keeps attacking Obama for gutting welfare in a new web ad, even as fact-checkers have debunked the claim.
The GOP's convention platform has softened its stance on trade with Cuba and allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and state Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) are both raising cash fast for what appear to be potential 2014 gubernatorial campaigns.
Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) defends Sheldon Adelson and says the investigation into him is politically motivated.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the FBI wasn't probing a group of GOP freshmen's swim in the Sea of Galilee(which included one getting naked), in contrast to a Politico report Sunday. Rather, WSJ reported, the bureau stumbled upon it while investigating a previously known case involving freshman Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who was involved.
A Democratic super PAC is spending $500,000 on ads for Senate candidate Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.).
Competing internal polls show Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-Ill.) leading challenger Cheri Bustos (D) by between nine and 13 points in a tough district for the GOP.
Must-reads:
"Romneys campaign coffers have $60 million more than Obamas" - T.W. Farnam, Washington Post
"Obama denies he is running a negative campaign" - David Nakamura and Philip Rucker, Washington Post
"In Congresss Paralysis, a Mightier Supreme Court" - Adam Liptak, New York Times
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1211 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 2:18 PM EST
Medicare is so last week;
Obama attacks Paul Ryan on education.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 153 words
President Obama plans to attack Paul Ryan's education policy at stops in Columbus, Ohio, and Reno, Nev. Tuesday. (Who says this campaign has no substance?)
The president is also touting his own "Pay As You Earn" policy, which capsloans at 10 percent of discretionary income. Acalculator on his campaign Web site shows student debtors how much they would save under the program.
A recent Obama ad attacked Mitt Romney as out of touch on the cost of college.
Obama's attacks assume across the board cuts in both Romney and Ryan's budgets, which would take billions from the Department of Education. Both Ryan and Romney say they would not implement their cuts in that way and have not laid out details on education spending. Ryan would limit the number of students eligible for Pell Grants.
Ryan is campaigning in Pennsylvania, where he is expected to focus on small business and defense cuts; Romney is attending fundraisers.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1212 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Think Tanked
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 1:54 PM EST
Todd Akin's absence and vigilance, the cost of Yoder's Sea of Galilee skinny-dipping and more [AM Briefing];
The morning's think tank news: Todd Akin's absence and vigilance, the cost of Yoder's Sea of Galilee skinny-dipping and more.
BYLINE: Allen McDuffee
LENGTH: 234 words
Politico's Arena asks: Should Todd Akin quit his Senate race?
Todd Akin rape comments prompt GOP to pull campaign funding, calls to exit race: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the entire GOP national political apparatus launched a swift and relentless crusade against one of their own Monday, seeking to drive Rep. Todd Akin out of the U.S. Senate race in Missouri after his controversial comments on rape and pregnancy threatened the party with widespread political harm." (Washington Post)
Todd Akin asks for forgiveness in new TV ad. (Washington Post)
Akin a no-show on Piers Morgan Tonight. (Washington Post)
Israel skinny-dipping could cost GOP seats: "The House class of 2010 has often been compared to the historic class of 1994. Both were large GOP classes which won the Republicans majority control of the House. But the current GOP freshmen don't seem to have learned the lessons of their predecessors. In 1996, when the class of 1994 ran for re-election - many of the dozen members who were defeated or didn't return to Washington were those who had acted irresponsibly or been an embarrassment to their constituents," writes the Woodrow Wilson Center's Linda Killian. (Politico)
Room for Debate asks: What makes protest effective? (New York Times)
Hoover's Richard Epstein: Franklin delano Obama. (Hoover)
Cato's Gene Healy: The bipartisan imperial presidency. (Washington Examiner)
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1213 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 21, 2012 Tuesday 1:41 PM EST
Obama spending more than he makes;
Romney is building a huge cash advantage.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 90 words
Along with the Democratic National Committee, Obama raised $75 million but spent $91 million in July. Meanwhile,GOP nominee Mitt Romney racks up more cash.Check out this chart from The Fix:
And Romney has been able to save more of his money, because he has more help. At the end of last month, 80 percent of GOP presidential ad spending came from super PACs and other outside groups, while only 19 percent of Democratic spending did. But Obama's campaign argues that investments in staff and online infrastructure will pay off in the long run.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1214 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 21, 2012 Tuesday
Suburban Edition
Obama says his campaign has played fair
BYLINE: David Nakamura;Philip Rucker
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 768 words
President Obama on Monday staunchly defended the tone of his reelection campaign, dismissing criticism that his side has been too negative in attacking Republican rival Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital and demanding that he release more tax returns.
In an impromptu news conference, Obama insisted that he has focused on substantial policy differences, such as jobs and taxes, and that his campaign advertisements have highlighted those divisions without crossing the line of fair play.
"If you look at the overall trajectory of our campaign and the ads that I've approved and are produced by my campaign, you'll see that we point out sharp differences between the candidates, but we don't go out of bounds," Obama told reporters at the White House after interrupting press secretary Jay Carney during the daily briefing.
The White House had not given any prior notice that the president would appear, but pressure has been mounting for Obama to take questions from the national press corps. He fielded questions on the recent killings of U.S. troopsin Afghanistan, the security situation in Syria and the sluggish U.S. economy.
With 21 /2 months remaining before Election Day, the 2012 campaign has been defined by its relentlessly hostile and bitter tone, with both sides engaging in daily attacks that have grown increasingly personal.
On Monday, the two campaigns sparred over Obama's handling of the Afghanistan war. During an appearance in Goffstown, N.H., with Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), his vice presidential pick, Romney told a crowd of 3,000 that the president has neglected to communicate with the American people about the conflict.
"When our men and woman are in harm's way, I expect the president of the United States to address the nation on a regular basis and explain what's happening and why they're there, what the mission is, what its purpose is, how we'll know when it's completed," Romney said. "Other presidents have done this. We haven't heard this president do this."
Romney's charge drew a swift reply from the Obama campaign, which called on Romney to reveal his "secret plan" for managing the war and charged that the Republican challenger has not offered any details. Obama has said he would remove U.S. forces by the end of 2014.
Obama, who ran on a theme of "hope and change" four years ago, has been chided by Republicans, and a few Democratic allies, for the tactics his Chicago-based campaign team has engaged in this cycle.
Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, suggested last month that it may have been a potential felonyfor Bain, the private-equity firm Romney founded and led, to continue listing him as chief executive in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission three years after he said he left, in 1999.
More recently, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012-campaign-enters-a-new-phase-as-obama-and-romney-rachet-up-their-attacks-on-each-other/2012/07/13/gJQAofMqiW_story.htmlPriorities USA Action, a super PAC that supports the president, produced a television ad that quotes a former worker of a company that Bain acquired saying his wife died after he was laid off and did not have health care.
Asked about those examples, Obama declared that "nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon." And the president said he does not think Romney is "somehow responsible for the death of the woman that was portrayed in that ad."
"But keep in mind," Obama added, "this is an ad that I didn't approve, I did not produce."
Ryan Williams, a Romney campaign spokesman, said that Obama failed to "stand up to dishonest rhetoric and attacks" from his campaign. The president's stance "demonstrates yet again he's diminished the office that he holds," Williams said.
But Obama said it was Romney who was playing dirty, pointing to ads from the Republican that claimed the Obama administration was granting states waivers of the work requirement for welfare recipients. The White House has said states will get waivers on some welfare rules if they can show that 20 percent more people will find jobs.
"You can't just make stuff up," Obama said.
Asked why his campaign continues to demand that Romney release more of his tax returns - Romney has released his 2010 taxes and is promising to release 2011 soon - Obama said that Americans expect their presidential candidates to be "an open book."
"This isn't sort of overly personal here, guys," Obama said. "This is pretty standard stuff. I don't think we're being mean by asking you to do what every other presidential candidate's done, right?"
nakamurad@washpost.com
ruckerp@washpost.com
Rucker reported from New Hampshire.
LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1215 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 21, 2012 Tuesday
Regional Edition
Thrown under the bus
BYLINE: Ruth Marcus
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 782 words
Missouri Republican Todd Akin's remarks about women not becoming pregnant from "legitimate rape" are so self-evidently offensive and ignorant they scarcely require a response. What merits more attention is what the episode exposes about the most fundamental of political instincts: self-preservation.
Start with Akin. The six-term congressman now running for the Senate posted a Facebook statement Sunday, explaining that he "misspoke" in making an "off-the-cuff" remark.
Misspoke is when you accidentally introduce your vice presidential running mate as the "next president of the United States." (See both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.) Misspoke is when your mouth gets ahead of your brain. (See Joe Biden, most recently on Republicans putting "y'all back in chains.") Misspoke is a politician's way of never having to say he's sorry, the first cousin to the non-apology apology ("I'm sorry if you were offended").
But suggesting that in situations of "legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" is not misspeaking. It's mis-thinking.
By midday Monday, Akin was in full grovel, appearing on Mike Huckabee's radio show to disavow his remarks without ever managing to explain them.
The Romney campaign followed a similar arc. First came the non-denunciation denunciation. On Sunday night, hours after the story broke, the campaign put out a joint statement by Romney and Paul Ryan mildly saying that they "disagree" with Akin's statement and "a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."
Disagreement is when you differ over the proper tax treatment of capital gains income. When an ally comes under assault, the first impulse of politicians of both parties is to circle the political wagons, to concede only as much as politically necessary and not a millimeter more.
Thus the Obama campaign's steadfast - and wrongheaded - refusal to distance itself from an inflammatory ad by an Obama-supporting super PAC insinuating that Romney helped contribute to the death of a laid-off worker's wife.
The second impulse is to throw the offending person under the bus. As the outrage over Akin's remarks mounted, so did the tone of the Romney campaign's rhetoric.
By Monday morning, Romney was telling National Review's Robert Costa that Akin's comments were "insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong," adding, "Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive." After we thought about it for a while.
Then there is the sheer cynicism of Democrats' attitude toward Akin, even predating his rape remarks. In the three-way Missouri GOP primary, Akin was the Democrats' favorite Republican. No surprise there: He was the most conservative of the field and therefore represented Sen. Claire McCaskill's best shot at holding on to her endangered seat.
The cynical twist was that a Democratic super PAC intervened in the primary to try to bolster Akin's chances. Majority PAC, a group allied with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), spent more than $1 million attacking the GOP front-runner, John Brunner.
This maneuver isn't unprecedented: The Patriot Majority PAC, run by a former Reid staffer, pulled the same stunt in Reid's own race two years ago, intervening in the Republican primary to help propel tea-party candidate Sharron Angle.
This time around, McCaskill herself seemed to be meddling in the GOP primary, with ads blasting all three Republicans. But her critique of Akin as the "true conservative" in the race and a "crusader against bigger government" appeared designed more to bolster Akin than to hurt him - and it represented the vast majority of McCaskill's spending.
There was McCaskill on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Monday, modestly demurring about whether Akin should withdraw as the nominee.
"It's not my place to decide," she said. "I really think that for the national party to try to come in here and dictate to the Republican primary voters that they're going to invalidate their decision, that would be pretty radical. I think there could be a backlash for the Republicans if they did that."
How nice of McCaskill to care so much about the other party - having helped cherry-pick its nominee.
Contrast McCaskill's tender concern for Missouri's Republican voters with that of Texas Sen. John Cornyn, head of the Republicans' Senate campaign arm, who all but shoved Akin out the door Monday.
Cornyn issued a statement calling Akin's remarks "wrong, offensive and indefensible" and urging him to take 24 hours to "carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party." A short time later, Romney was urging the same.
Is it any wonder Americans hate politics?
ruthmarcus@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1216 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 20, 2012 Monday
Late Edition - Final
G.O.P. Packaging Seeks to Reveal A Warm Romney
BYLINE: By JEREMY W. PETERS;
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1068 words
TAMPA, Fla. -- They hail from the Broadway stage, the control rooms of NBC and the design studios that created sleek sets for Oprah Winfrey and Jon Stewart.Their craft is slick packaging and eye candy that audiences consume by the millions.
Their latest project? Selling the Mitt Romney story in prime time.
Working from makeshift offices at a hockey arena here, a team of Romney advisers, producers and designers has been staging and scripting a program for the Republican National Convention that they say they hope will accomplish something a year of campaigning has failed to do: paint a full and revealing portrait of who Mitt Romney is.
Instead of glossing over Mr. Romney's career as a private equity executive, they will highlight it in convention videos and speeches as the kind of experience that has prepared him to be the economic steward the country needs.
And rather than shy away from Mr. Romney's faith, as some campaign aides have argued he should, they have decided to embrace it. On the night Mr. Romney will address the convention, a member of the Mormon Church will deliver the invocation. On Sunday, this new approach was apparent as Mr. Romney invited reporters to join him at church services.
The campaign aides are determined to overcome perceptions that Mr. Romney is stiff, aloof and distant. So they have built one of the most intricate set pieces ever designed for a convention -- a $2.5 million Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired theatrical stage. From its dark-wood finish to the brightly glowing high-resolution screens in the rafters that look like skylights, every aspect of the stage has been designed to convey warmth, approachability and openness.
Conventions no longer command the kind of public attention they once did, and their very slickness can conspire against addressing the kinds of perception problems Mr. Romney faces. So one recent morning as Mr. Romney's image makers -- a team that includes many people who have never worked on a political convention before -- scurried around on the sawdust-covered floor of the Tampa Bay Times Forum, they said an essential part of conveying who their candidate is will depend on making the four days of programming feel nothing like a convention at all.
''Usually the convention is so straight and staid and symmetrical, even-Steven,'' said Eddie Knasiak, one of the convention co-designers whose credits include projects for Ms. Winfrey, Martha Stewart and MTV. ''We were conscious of trying to make it not seem grandiose. We wanted it to seem inclusive, warm. It's not like anything you've seen at a convention before.''
The convention hall will have two musical stages -- one for surprise acts and another for the house band, which will be led by G. E. Smith, the former musical director for ''Saturday Night Live'' and guitarist for Hall & Oates.
To serve as executive producer, the Republican Party brought in Phil Alongi, a former politics producer with NBC News. Mr. Alongi has helped the Romney campaign fine-tune its programming so it fits neatly into the tight, one-hour block that the broadcast networks have dedicated to airing the convention in prime time. He has advised them on how to avoid certain pet peeves of producers, like running long at the top or bottom of the hour, when the networks have to cut away for commercial breaks.
Mr. Alongi, with his knowledge of what cameramen and producers will be looking for, has also ensured that Republican Party branding is placed in camera lines of sight. ''When they're flipping through the channels at home, I want them to know this is the Republican National Convention,'' he said.
The most ambitious element of stagecraft, however, will be the podium -- which features 13 different video screens -- the largest about 29 feet by 12 feet, the smallest about 8 feet by 8 feet and movable. All the screens will be framed in dark wood.
''Even the frames are designed to give it a sense that you're not looking at a stage, you're looking into someone's living room,'' said Russ Schriefer, one of Mr. Romney's senior advisers who is running the convention planning for the campaign.
From the six-feet-high podium, staircases slope into the audience. The intended symbolism: Mr. Romney is open and approachable, not distant and far above.
Along with other props -- including a digital clock mounted to one of the arena's upper rings that will show the national debt ticking ever-higher -- the video screens will help augment whatever messages a speaker is trying to convey, be it images of woeful-looking Americans to convey that President Obama has mismanaged the economy or pictures of the Romney children that speak to the candidate's deep bonds with his family.
Mr. Romney, who as the planner for the Salt Lake City Olympics has experience coordinating large-scale events, has had a direct hand in shaping some major aspects of the convention, from the podium design to the theme, ''A Better Future,'' which he personally approved.
When his aides showed him an early proposal for the set, a more modern stage with features like steps that would light up, he told them to go back to the drawing board.
How to approach his religion, a topic that he usually avoids speaking about beyond the most general terms, is a question that has long divided his campaign staff. But in the end, they decided to confront it head on. In addition to the invocation, Mr. Romney's work as a bishop in the Mormon Church will be on display.
Despite concerns that his religion might alienate evangelicals and other conservatives, Mr. Romney and his advisers hope that his faith ultimately will be seen as a sign of strength of character, and his time as bishop as an example of his willingness to serve when called.
There is still the question of whether four nights of slickly produced biographical videos, elaborate staging and gushing speeches can change the dynamics of the presidential campaign or alter impressions of a man who has been a national figure for most of the last decade.
Still, Mr. Romney's advisers see it as a chance at a fresh start.
''This is an opportunity for us to tell the Mitt Romney story in a way that people might not have seen,'' Mr. Schriefer said. ''This is our chance to lay out the arguments for why Barack Obama has failed and why Mitt Romney would do better, and to do that using a platform where 39 million people tune in to hear him speak, a lot of them for the first time.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/us/politics/romney-campaign-works-feverishly-to-project-relaxed-image.html
LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: The Romney campaign wants the main stage for the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., to convey warmth and openness. (PHOTOGRAPH BY EDWARD LINSMIER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A1)
Preparations at the Tampa Bay Times Forum for the Republican meeting, which organizers hope will not feel like a convention.
John Zito, top, a producer, watched a mock feed last week. The campaign brought in an NBC News veteran to fine-tune programming for the tight prime-time blocks on television. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY EDWARD LINSMIER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A12)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1217 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 20, 2012 Monday
Late Edition - Final
G.O.P. Packaging Seeks to Reveal A Warm Romney
BYLINE: By JEREMY W. PETERS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1095 words
TAMPA, Fla. -- They hail from the Broadway stage, the control rooms of NBC and the design studios that created sleek sets for Oprah Winfrey and Jon Stewart.Their craft is slick packaging and eye candy that audiences consume by the millions.
Their latest project? Selling the Mitt Romney story in prime time.
Working from makeshift offices at a hockey arena here, a team of Romney advisers, producers and designers have been staging and scripting a program for the Republican National Convention that they say they hope will accomplish something a year of campaigning has failed to do: paint a full and revealing portrait of who Mitt Romney is.
Instead of glossing over Mr. Romney's career as a private equity executive, they will highlight it in convention videos and speeches as the kind of experience that has prepared him to be the economic steward the country needs.
And rather than shy away from Mr. Romney's faith, as some campaign aides have argued he should, they have decided to embrace it. On the night Mr. Romney will address the convention, a member of the Mormon Church will deliver the invocation. On Sunday, this new approach was apparent as Mr. Romney invited reporters to join him at church services.
The campaign aides are determined to overcome perceptions that Mr. Romney is stiff, aloof and distant. So they have built one of the most intricate set pieces ever designed for a convention -- a $2.5 million Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired theatrical stage. From its dark-wood finish to the brightly glowing high-resolution screens in the rafters that look like skylights, every aspect of the stage has been designed to convey warmth, approachability and openness.
Conventions no longer command the kind of public attention they once did, and their very slickness can conspire against addressing the kinds of perception problems Mr. Romney faces. So one recent morning as Mr. Romney's image makers -- a team that includes many people who have never worked on a political convention before -- scurried around on the sawdust-covered floor of the Tampa Bay Times Forum, they said an essential part of conveying who their candidate is will depend on making the four days of programming feel nothing like a convention at all.
''Usually the convention is so straight and staid and symmetrical, even-Steven,'' said Eddie Knasiak, one of the convention co-designers whose credits include projects for Ms. Winfrey, Martha Stewart and MTV. ''We were conscious of trying to make it not seem grandiose. We wanted it to seem inclusive, warm. It's not like anything you've seen at a convention before.''
The convention hall will have two musical stages -- one for surprise acts and another for the house band, which will be led by G. E. Smith, the former musical director for ''Saturday Night Live'' and guitarist for Hall & Oates.
To serve as executive producer, the Republican Party brought in Phil Alongi, a former politics producer with NBC News. Mr. Alongi has helped the Romney campaign fine-tune its programming so it fits neatly into the tight, one-hour block that the broadcast networks have dedicated to airing the convention in prime time. He has advised them on how to avoid certain pet peeves of producers, like running long at the top or bottom of the hour, when the networks have to cut away for commercial breaks.
Mr. Alongi, with his knowledge of what cameramen and producers will be looking for, has also ensured that Republican Party branding is placed in camera lines of sight. ''When they're flipping through the channels at home, I want them to know this is the Republican National Convention,'' he said.
The most ambitious element of stagecraft, however, will be the podium -- which features 13 different video screens -- the largest about 29 feet by 12 feet, the smallest about 8 feet by 8 feet and movable. All the screens will be framed in dark wood.
''Even the frames are designed to give it a sense that you're not looking at a stage, you're looking into someone's living room,'' said Russ Schriefer, one of Mr. Romney's senior advisers who is running the convention planning for the campaign.
From the six-feet-high podium, staircases slope into the audience. The intended symbolism: Mr. Romney is open and approachable, not distant and far above.
Along with other props -- including a digital clock mounted to one of the arena's upper rings that will show the national debt ticking ever-higher -- the video screens will help augment whatever messages a speaker is trying to convey, be it images of woeful-looking Americans to convey that President Obama has mismanaged the economy or pictures of the Romney children that speak to the candidate's deep bonds with his family.
Mr. Romney, who as the planner for the Salt Lake City Olympics has experience coordinating large-scale events, has had a direct hand in shaping some major aspects of the convention, from the podium design to the theme, ''A Better Future,'' which he personally approved.
When his aides showed him an early proposal for the set, a more modern stage with features like steps that would light up, he told them to go back to the drawing board.
Not everything in the convention hall will be to Mr. Romney's tastes, however. The concession stands will serve alcohol, which observant Mormons do not consume.
How to approach his religion, a topic that he usually avoids speaking about beyond the most general terms, is a question that has long divided his campaign staff. But in the end, they decided to confront it head on. In addition to the invocation, Mr. Romney's work as a bishop in the Mormon Church will be on display.
Despite concerns that his religion might alienate evangelicals and other conservatives, Mr. Romney and his advisers hope that his faith ultimately will be seen as a sign of strength of character, and his time as bishop as an example of his willingness to serve when called.
There is still the question of whether four nights of slickly produced biographical videos, elaborate staging and gushing speeches can change the dynamics of the presidential campaign or alter impressions of a man who has been a national figure for most of the last decade.
Still, Mr. Romney's advisers see it as a chance at a fresh start.
''This is an opportunity for us to tell the Mitt Romney story in a way that people might not have seen,'' Mr. Schriefer said. ''This is our chance to lay out the arguments for why Barack Obama has failed and why Mitt Romney would do better, and to do that using a platform where 39 million people tune in to hear him speak, a lot of them for the first time.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/us/politics/romney-campaign-works-feverishly-to-project-relaxed-image.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: The Romney campaign wants the main stage for the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., to convey warmth and openness. (PHOTOGRAPH BY EDWARD LINSMIER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A1)
Preparations at the Tampa Bay Times Forum for the Republican meeting, which organizers hope will not feel like a convention.
John Zito, top, a producer, watched a mock feed last week. The campaign brought in an NBC News veteran to fine-tune programming for the tight prime-time blocks on television. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY EDWARD LINSMIER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A12)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1218 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 20, 2012 Monday
Romney Statement on Abortion Appears to Contradict Ryan's Earlier Position
BYLINE: TRIP GABRIEL and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 583 words
HIGHLIGHT: In the past, Representative Paul D. Ryan has opposed abortion in the case of rape, despite a campaign statement on Sunday that neither he nor Mitt Romney opposes abortion in rape cases.
A campaign statement that neither Mitt Romney nor Representative Paul D. Ryan opposes abortion in rape cases seems to contradict Mr. Ryan's earlier position on the issue.
The statement was issued late Sunday in response to a widely condemned comment earlier in the day by Representative Todd Akin, the Republican Senate nominee from Missouri, that in cases of what he called "legitimate rape,'' women's bodies reject a pregnancy. Mr. Akin was explaining why he opposes abortion in the case of rape.
"Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,'' a Romney campaign spokeswoman, Amanda Henneberg, wrote.
Although Mr. Romney has stated this position before, Mr. Ryan, a seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin, has opposed abortion in the case of rape. During his first run for the seat in 1998, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported he opposed abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother.
More recently, Mr. Ryan was a co-sponsor of a House bill last year defining human life as beginning with fertilization and granting "personhood'' rights to embryos, a movement that supporters say will outlaw abortions in all cases, and may also restrict some forms of birth control.
Furor over Mr. Akin's remarks, which he later retracted, may bring new attention to the most uncompromising wing of the anti-abortion movement, complicating the Republican ticket's efforts to appeal to women voters.
President Obama, who has a commanding lead in polls with women, has already pressed the issue. The day after Mr. Ryan was announced as the vice-presidential pick, the Obama campaign's Twitter account published a message:
Make sure the women in your life know: Paul Ryan supports banning all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.
- Barack Obama (@BarackObama)12 Aug 12
Mr. Romney has had his own complicated history with the abortion issue. He was what he now calls "effectively pro-choice'' early in his political career, but became an abortion opponent when he was confronted with a bill on stem cell research as governor of Massachusetts.
Since then, he has opposed abortion, but -- unlike his running mate -- has said the procedure should be legal in the cases of rape or incest.
That hasn't stopped Democrats from using the issue against him, especially in the wake of Mr. Romney's repeated promise to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood because the group performs abortions.
In an interview last March, Mr. Romney elaborated on his desire to end funding of programs that he deems unnecessary. "Of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one, but there are others," he said. "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."
That line has made it into several Democratic videos and ads.
A campaign commercial from Mr. Obama's campaign went even further, accusing Mr. Romney of supporting "overturning Roe versus Wade" and alleging that "Romney backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in case of rape and incest."
Aides to Mr. Romney have been particularly angry about that last charge, since Mr. Romney has said explicitly that he supports rape and incest exceptions. Independent fact checkers have said that charge is false.
For Ryan's First Solo Outing as Candidate, a Soapbox Appearance at the Iowa State Fair
In Michigan, Voters Question Romney's Conservative Credentials
Romney Ad: So Not P.C.
G.O.P. Pro-Choice Group Releases Anti-Romney Ads
2008: Dueling Edwardses
LOAD-DATE: August 20, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1219 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 20, 2012 Monday 9:55 PM EST
Jim Talent says he won't replace Todd Akin in Missouri;
The former senator's name has been tossed around as possible Akin replacement, but he isn't interested.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 548 words
Rep. Todd Akin says he will stay in the Missouri Senate race and former senator Jim Talent does not want toreplacehim, President Obama holds a press conference, and the DSCC raises $5.84 million in July.
Make sure to sign up to receiveAfternoon Fixevery day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Obamas got game, but NBA owners give more to Romney
The many faces of the Democratic Party
Republicans pull money from Missouri
Akin: Ive not yet begun to fight
The many faces of the Republican Party
Todd Akins real sin
Todd Akins biggest problem: GOP critics
Todd Akins Bachmann-esque problem
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* In both a tweet and an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) hasreiteratedthat he intends to stay in the Senate race against Sen. Claire McCaskill (D).Im announcing today that were going to stay in, he told Hannity.I will continue to apologize. Akin'scomment thatlegitimate rape rarely causes pregnancy has prompted calls from within his own party for the congressman to end his Senate bid.MittRomney said Akin "shouldspend 24 hours considering what will best help the country at this critical time."
*Former Missouri Republican senator Jim Talentsaid he will not run for the Senatein Missouri, if Akin exits the race. But businessman John Brunnerappearsto be keeping his options open. Brunner, who lost to Akin the GOP primary,has beenmaking exploratory phone calls, says aMissouriGOP strategist.
* In a White House news conference,PresidentObamacriticizedRepublicans' positions on taxes and women's rights."Rape is rape and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me," Obama said, regarding Akin's controversial comments.
* The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had its best July ever, raising $5.84 million and ending the month with $32.4 million in the bank. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has not yet released its July numbers.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, Romney avoided talkingaboutMedicare and instead attacked Obama on other issues, like foreign policy andnationalsecurity. Romney was stumping with his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who in his ownremarksbrieflydefended the GOP ticket'sMedicareplan and criticized Obama's plan.
* The Obama campaign has released state-specific radio ads in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia hitting the Romney-Ryan budget. TheVirginiaad says Ryan "put forward a budget plan thatslashesinvestmentsin road andinfrastructureprojects."
* Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is driving his well-known pickup truck in hislatest TV ad, a 30-second spot in which the Republican says his humble upbringing "helped me build character. It made me who I am today."
* Former secretary of state Condoleeza Rice is one of the first two women to be invited to join the previously all-maleAugusta National Golf Club, home of The Masters golf tournament.
THE FIX MIX:
Lights, please!
WIth Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1220 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 20, 2012 Monday 6:30 PM EST
Obama distances himself from cancer ad;
Obama says Romney not responsible for woman's death.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 135 words
"I don't think that Gov. Romney is somehow responsible for the death of the woman who is portrayed in that ad," the president told the White House press corps when asked about a controversial ad from the super PAC Priorities USA Action tying the Republican candidate to a tragic death from cancer."But keep in mind this is an ad that I didn't approve, I did not produce, and as far as I can tell, has barely run."
The man featured in the ad has also appeared on an Obama campaign conference call, but Obama's team has denied knowledge of his story.
Obama also distanced himself from criticism of Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital, saying, "Nobody accused Romney of being a felon." Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter suggested earlier this year that the Republican nominee "may have committed a felony."
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1221 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 20, 2012 Monday 1:06 PM EST
Romney not giving up welfare attack;
Romney not giving up welfare attack.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 80 words
Romney's new ad, 'Richmond Times-Dispatch On Welfare Reform'
What it says: "On July 12th, President Obama quietly ended the work requirement gutting welfare reform. One of the most respected newspapers in America called it 'Nuts.'"
What it means: Romney will keep using his welfare attack, and he's got a newspaper editorial to back him up.
Factchecker: Romney's claim that Obama "gutted" welfare reform got Four Pinocchios.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1222 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 20, 2012 Monday 12:45 PM EST
What you missed today;
Short summary of story
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 52 words
* Obama offered a deal, and Romney rejected it.
* Obama released a Medicare ad, and the AARP doesn't endorse it.
* The White House press corps pressed the White House on Obama's unavailability.
* Paul Ryan decried partisanship in Virginia.
* And Republicans are now attacking Obama for cutting spending on two fronts.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1223 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 19, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Truth and Lies About Medicare
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Editorial Desk; EDITORIAL; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 1182 words
Republican attacks on President Obama's plans for Medicare are growing more heated and inaccurate by the day. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made statements last week implying that the Affordable Care Act would eviscerate Medicare when in fact the law should shore up the program's finances.Both men have also twisted themselves into knots to distance themselves from previous positions, so that voters can no longer believe anything they say. Last week, both insisted that they would save Medicare by pumping a huge amount of money into the program, a bizarre turnaround for supposed fiscal conservatives out to rein in federal spending.
The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED ''RAID ON MEDICARE'' A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has ''cut'' $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured. ''So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you,'' the ad warns.
What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.
In reality, the $716 billion is not a ''cut'' in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.
One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers -- like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies -- to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.
And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers -- fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.
NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors -- namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.
Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.
If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.
NO BANKRUPTCY LOOMING The Republicans also argue that the reform law will weaken Medicare and that by preventing the cuts and ultimately turning to vouchers they will enhance the program's solvency. But Medicare is not in danger of going ''bankrupt''; the issue is whether the trust fund that pays hospital bills will run out of money in 2024, as now projected, and require the program to live on the annual payroll tax revenues it receives.
The Affordable Care Act helped push back the insolvency date by eight years, so repealing the act would actually bring the trust fund closer to insolvency, perhaps in 2016.
DEFICIT REDUCTION Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan said last week that they would restore the entire $716 billion in cuts by repealing the law. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that repealing the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.
The Republicans gave no clue about how they would pay for restoring the Medicare cuts without increasing the deficit. It is hard to believe that, if faced with the necessity of fashioning a realistic budget, keeping Medicare spending high would be a top priority with a Romney-Ryan administration that also wants to spend very large sums on the military and on tax cuts for wealthy Americans.
Regardless of who wins the election, Medicare spending has to be reined in lest it squeeze out other priorities, like education. It is utterly irresponsible for the Republicans to promise not to trim Medicare spending in their desperate bid for votes.
THE DANGER IN MEDICARE VOUCHERS The reform law would help working-age people on modest incomes buy private policies with government subsidies on new insurance exchanges, starting in 2014. Federal oversight will ensure a reasonably comprehensive benefit package, and competition among the insurers could help keep costs down.
But it is one thing to provide these ''premium support'' subsidies for uninsured people who cannot get affordable coverage in the costly, dysfunctional markets that serve individuals and their families. It is quite another thing to use a similar strategy for older Americans who have generous coverage through Medicare and who might well end up worse off if their vouchers failed to keep pace with the cost of decent coverage.
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would allow beneficiaries to use vouchers to buy a version of traditional Medicare instead of a private plan, but it seems likely that the Medicare plan would attract the sickest patients, driving up Medicare premiums so that they would be unaffordable for many who wanted traditional coverage. Before disrupting the current Medicare program, it would be wise to see how well premium support worked in the new exchanges.
THE CHOICE This will be an election about big problems, and it will provide a clear choice between contrasting approaches to solve them. In the Medicare arena, the choice is between a Democratic approach that wants to retain Medicare as a guaranteed set of benefits with the government paying its share of the costs even if costs rise, and a Republican approach that wants to limit the government's spending to a defined level, relying on untested market forces to drive down insurance costs.
The reform law is starting pilot programs to test ways to reduce Medicare costs without cutting benefits. Many health care experts have identified additional ways to shave hundreds of billions of dollars from projected spending over the next decade without harming beneficiaries.
It is much less likely that the Republicans, who have long wanted to privatize Medicare, can achieve these goals.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/truth-and-lies-about-medicare.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1224 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 19, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
House Party
BYLINE: By LEWIS L. GOULD.
Lewis L. Gould is professor emeritus of American history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans.''
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Sunday Review Desk; CAMPAIGN STOPS; Pg. 3
LENGTH: 592 words
In the excitement over Mitt Romney's selection of Paul D. Ryan as his running mate, few have noted the rarity of an incumbent member of the House as a vice-presidential choice. Each party has done it twice since 1900, with one success and one failure for both Republicans and Democrats.The Republicans began in 1908 with James S. Sherman, who ran with William H. Taft. A representative from upstate New York, Sherman (known as ''Sunny Jim'') balanced the ''Western'' choice of Taft from Ohio. In office, Sherman presided over the Senate and played golf. After Taft defeated Theodore Roosevelt for the party nomination in 1912, Sherman was renominated by default. He died of a heart condition in late October and is now forgotten.
In the tumultuous 1932 Democratic convention that first nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt, the House speaker, John Nance Garner of Texas (nicknamed ''Cactus Jack''), threw his delegates to F.D.R. and received the vice presidency in return. Later he opined that the position was not worth ''a bucket of warm piss.'' Garner ran for president himself in 1940 but could not overcome the third-term sentiment for Roosevelt.
Sherman and Garner were credible choices. Barry M. Goldwater's selection in 1964 of William A. Miller, a House member from Niagara County, N.Y., derived from the intense partisanship Miller had shown as a Republican who would, in Goldwater's word, drive Lyndon B. Johnson ''nuts.'' Following Goldwater's defeat, Miller was relegated to obscurity until he returned in 1975 in an American Express card commercial asking ''Do You Know Me?''
Twenty years later, facing bleak electoral prospects, Walter F. Mondale selected Geraldine A. Ferraro as the first female running mate. Beyond that creditable innovation, Ferraro had crippling flaws, including tangled family finances and a less than compelling campaign style. For the third time, a House member from New York on a national ticket lost.
Can Paul Ryan emerge as a Sherman or a Garner, or will he be a Miller or a Ferraro? Is he an inspired choice or a risky pick, given his positions on Medicare vouchers and tax cuts for the wealthy? Some on the right already seem to wish that Mr. Ryan were the presidential candidate himself, which brings to mind the story that circulated when President Calvin Coolidge told William E. Borah, a senator from Idaho, in 1924 that he wanted him on the ticket. Borah is said to have replied, ''Which place, Mr. President?''
Tickets where the vice-presidential candidate seems to have more ideological and intellectual heft than the standard-bearer can be problematic. Perhaps Mr. Romney's choice did not turn on Mr. Ryan's membership in the House or even on his status as chairman of the Budget Committee. Rather, it played to a widespread sense on the right that Mr. Ryan will dominate Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in their single debate and at the same time, by his mere presence, throw President Obama off his game.
So Mr. Ryan, like William Miller, may seem most attractive to Republicans as a means of infuriating Democrats and tempting them into an awkward gaffe or fatal slip. Mr. Ryan faces the demanding task of demonstrating that his reputation as a budget wonk and Republican intellectual in the House rests on more than just the marked absence in his caucus of serious competitors for these labels. Otherwise there may be an American Express commercial in his future, too.
This is an excerpt from Campaign Stops, at nytimes.com/campaignstops.
This is an excerpt from Campaign Stops, at nytimes.com/campaignstops.
URL:
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1225 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 19, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
5 Myths about political conventions
BYLINE: Martin Cohen
SECTION: Outlook; Pg. B02
LENGTH: 1215 words
1. Nothing substantive comes out of the conventions.
Yes, the parties' standard-bearers have already been selected and presented to the public. But the conventions give the parties a chance to shape their images and platforms.
In some years, the parties have emerged from the conventions with sharply contrasting tones. For example, when the Democrats were split over the Vietnam War in 1968, the party's elites picked Vice President Hubert Humphrey at the convention in Chicago, and the antiwar faction went ballistic. Police and protesters battled in the streets, while pro- and antiwar delegates shouted each other down in the convention hall. Meanwhile, the Republican Party met in Miami Beach and had a tranquil coronation of Richard Nixon. The GOP came out looking better - and went on to win in November. And incidentally, the chaos in Chicago led to the reforms that created the modern nominating system.
The 1992 conventions pitted Republican culture warriors Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson, whose calls to "take back our country" sounded tone-deaf to many voters, against Democrats Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who projected youth, vitality and progress. The country rewarded their social liberalism in November as George H.W. Bush lost his bid for a second term. And in 2004, each convention sought to portray its candidate as a war hero. The Democrats made John Kerry's service in Vietnam a key theme, only to see it tarnished by the swift boat ad campaign. George W. Bush, who did not see combat in Vietnam, trumpeted his strong leadership after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and during the still-popular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's manufactured military career dominated Kerry's actual one.
Considering how negative the 2012 campaign has been, it would not be surprising if both conventions focused mostly on the flaws and shortcomings of their opponents - a classic "lesser of two evils" election.
2. The nominee's speech is the most important part of the convention.
Many of us might get our fill of the candidates before the party meetings start. However, other speeches can have a lasting effect on the rest of the campaign.
In 1980, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's attempt to challenge President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination failed, but Kennedy's words at the convention proved memorable. His "the dream shall never die" speech, imploring the party to renew its commitment to economic justice, roused convention-goers to their feet. And his endorsement of his onetime rival helped give Carter a bump in public support.
In contrast, Buchanan's "culture war" speech dragged down the Bush-Quayle ticket in 1992, turning off moderate voters with moralistic rhetoric.
Who will steal the show in 2012? My bet is on former president Bill Clinton, who will officially place President Obama's name in nomination, and who will probably use the opportunity to burnish his record and that of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the once-and-maybe-future presidential candidate. 3. The convention bounce is meaningless.
Convention bounces - higher favorability ratings for a candidate after the party's meeting - are generally thought to occur because many voters are just beginning to pay attention to the candidates, and their first impression is usually a good one, considering that the candidates can control the setting and message at a convention much more easily than at any other time in the campaign. The bounce may be more a reflection of hype than a measure of sustained support.
But sometimes a convention can kick-start a campaign to victory, such as Bill Clinton's in 1992. His 16-point post-convention jump in the polls, compared with George H.W. Bush's five-point rise, was the biggest since surveys began measuring the bounce in 1964.
In other years, the lack of a bounce has hurt a faltering campaign. Democrat George McGovern didn't get one in 1972, while Kerry's favorability rating went down after his 2004 convention. Those were bad signs for both candidates, who fell short in their bids for the White House. Given the latest polls, such a bounce might be more important for Mitt Romney than for Obama. 4. The delegates are a bunch of political hacks on a taxpayer-funded junket.
First of all, the delegates travel to the conventions at their own expense. Second, you do not need to be a current or former elected official to attend. The gatherings are certainly dominated by those with political experience, but ordinary voters - with a little ambition, luck and disposable income - have a decent shot at attending.
The delegate process varies among states, but anyone can apply with the local party office. Each state is allotted delegates in proportion to its population and with regard to its partisan voting history. States that are deeper shades of blue, as measured by Democratic votes for president and for governor, have more delegates invited to the Democratic convention, for example. California has been allocated 611 Democratic delegates this year, while Delaware has 32.
5. There are no surprises.
Even though a vice presidential candidate is now more likely to be selected a few weeks ahead of time, the convention is often a coming-out party, setting the tone for the rest of his or her political career. The prototypical example occurred four years ago when Sarah Palin was thrust onto the scene by John McCain. Her folksy personality charmed or rankled, depending on where you fell on the ideological spectrum. The GOP convention was must-see television simply because the country was discovering this fascinating individual.
And in 2004, a young state senator from Illinois thrilled the Democratic crowd with a speech that showcased his life story and his belief in a better America. We all know what happened to that guy.
While Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, is a rising conservative star in Washington, most Americans don't know much about him. The Republican convention is his chance to change that. However, with Sen. Marco Rubio delivering the speech introducing Romney, many in the party may be surprised to find themselves wishing that their nominee had made a different choice. cohenmg@jmu.edu
Martin Cohen is a political science professor at James Madison University.
Read more from Outlook: Five myths about the veepstakes
Five myths about campaign ads Five myths about swing states
Friend us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.Get ready for balloons, funny hats and lots of speeches. In the coming weeks, the Republican and Democratic parties will officially select their presidential nominees at their national conventions in Tampa and Charlotte, respectively. Until the modern primary and caucus system was established in the 1970s, the conventions held a lot more political significance; they were where the parties actually picked the nominees. Yet, despite the fact that we have known the identities of this year's nominees for months, the conventions still matter. Here are a few things they do - and don't - reveal.
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1226 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 19, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Campaign unbecoming
BYLINE: Editorial Board
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 489 words
THE WEEK STARTED with hope that the presidential campaign would take an overdue turn to substance, and it has - sort of. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise anyone, but the past few days have shown that modern politics can transform any serious issue into a demagogic slugfest.
In fact, as the Medicare debate is demonstrating, it may be that the more serious the issue, and the more central to voters' concerns, the more it is susceptible to bumper-sticker politics: You'd slash it! No, you'dslash it! The real debate, one that may not be possible in the overheated atmosphere of a presidential campaign, needs to be over how to change the program to produce needed savings and better outcomes.
Meanwhile, the tone of the campaign grows ever nastier. After an inflammatory remark by Vice President Biden, Republican candidate Mitt Romney accused the president of running a "campaign of division and anger and hate." The Obama campaign shot back by saying Mr. Romney "seemed unhinged." Political campaigns are rarely pretty spectacles of high-minded policy debate. Yet several phenomena mark the 2012 campaign as particularly lacking. In most recent campaigns, candidates - especially challengers, who have not had four years in office to translate ideology into action - felt compelled to present reasonably detailed programs across a range of issues. By contrast, Mr. Romney has skated across the surface on a range of issues, offering platitudes in place of programs. How would he approach the violence in Syria, the increasingly evident toll of climate change, the looming fiscal cliff? Rhetoric is abundant, but detail is lacking.
For his part, President Obama has offered only the gauziest outlines of a second-term agenda. Instead, his argument for reelection is focused on the damage he argues Mr. Romney and fellow Republicans would do. This may be enough for Mr. Obama to cobble together the necessary electoral votes, but it hardly lays the groundwork for the difficult choices, particularly on the fiscal front, that will confront the next president - and that Mr. Obama ducked during his current term.
Instead of dealing with issues, the candidates and their surrogates have been mired in arguments that are extraneous, disreputable or both. On this list: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's reckless accusation that Mr. Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. The gut-punching ad by Obama-supporting super PAC Priorities USA that effectively accuses Mr. Romney of complicity in the cancer death of the wife of a steelworker who lost his job when a plant owned by Mr. Romney's Bain Capital declared bankruptcy. Mr. Romney's false claim that Mr. Obama wants to coddle welfare recipients. Can this campaign be saved? Both candidates are serious men. They can't be proud of the exchanges of the past few weeks - the scurrilous ads, unsourced accusations and demagogic fear-mongering. The American people deserve better.
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1227 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 19, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Ryan's Medicare plan gives Democrats familiar attack
BYLINE: Ed O'Keefe;Rosalind S. Helderman
SECTION: A section; Pg. A03
LENGTH: 1165 words
BLOOMINGDALE, Ill. - Tammy Duckworth spent 10 minutes calling Bingo numbers during a game at the Bloomingdale Horizon retirement home, then she took questions.
The first was predictable enough: What are you going to do for seniors?
"First and foremost," Duckworth began, "I'm going to preserve Medicare and Social Security. I'm not going to let them turn Medicare into a voucher program."
Duckworth is a Democrat running for Congress in a district in the Chicago suburbs, and "them," of course, is shorthand for Republicans, mostly Mitt Romney and his new running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, whose Medicare proposal reemerged this week as the favorite blunt-force instrument of congressional Democrats in their fight to retake control of the House.
Ryan's elevation to the national GOP ticket has allowed Democrats to reprise their savaging of the Ryan plan with tactics they know well, having used them to great political effect over the past two years.
Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unleashed a barrage of attacks on Republican candidates with a series of robo-calls in about 50 congressional races. And the first of the DCCC's television ads since Ryan joined the GOP ticket was launched Thursday; it targeted freshman Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.) for his vote in support of Ryan's Medicare overhaul. The ad features a clip of Benishek praising efforts to "privatize" Medicare and Social Security.
Democrats think this is a winning issue for them and are gleeful that Ryan's higher profile has made it the center of the campaign debate.
Duckworth and other Democrats said Ryan's addition to the Republican ticket only amplifies concerns they've discussed for months.
"You've got all these Harry Houdinis all over the country trying to untangle themselves from the Ryan budget," said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the DCCC. "And we're not going to let them."Duckworth, for example, told the crowd that Ryan's proposal would abandon seniors, leaving them to fend for themselves.
"My concern is that I don't want my mom to have a $600 voucher and tell her, here, you go negotiate with an insurance company on your own," Duckworth said. "I don't think that's right."
Those in the room in Bloomingdale agreed.
"This is really ridiculous," said Fran Powrozek, 82. "We're citizens. We don't have enough money to live on the way it is. They already cut my insurance for prescription drugs."
But Powrozek and her bingo partners admitted Thursday after Duckworth spoke that they don't know much about Ryan's plan.
"For two or three days, they've been talking about him on TV," Jean Corbeil, 75, said. "They say he'll be good - I don't know."
Ryan's plan leaves Medicare benefits untouched for current retirees but, over time, would shift the program from an open-ended guarantee of care to a capped payment to seniors for them to use to purchase private insurance.
Ryan and Romney have worked to neutralize the attacks by slamming Democrats for including cuts to Medicare providers in the 2010 Obama health-care overhaul. Ryan assumed those same cuts in his budget proposal adopted by the House this year, but Romney has said he would restore them.
"We want this debate. We need this debate. And we will win this debate," Ryan told a crowd in Oxford, Ohio, last week.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told his fellow Republicans on Thursday not to fear the Democratic attacks on the Ryan budget. During a conference call, he implored his colleagues to remember their year-long focus on job creation and the economy.
"The best defense on Medicare is a good offense," he said. "And Paul Ryan gives us the ability to play offense."
And on Friday, the National Republican Congressional Committee launched an offensive, releasing a new ad titled "Mediscare" that targeted Rep. Mark S. Critz (D-Pa.).
The race is on now as each side tries to define the Ryan proposal in order to reap some political advantage with voters.
Duckworth's opponent is GOP incumbent Rep. Joe Walsh, who echoed Boehner's line Thursday. "I'm not defending Ryan's plan, I'm staying on offense," he said in an interview. "Tammy Duckworth and Democrats are going to run around scaring seniors, and I don't think it's going to work. I think America is ready to grow up."
Nobody asked Walsh about Ryan's plan when he met with supporters Thursday night at a barbecue restaurant 10 minutes from where Duckworth spoke. But afterward, retired flight attendant Pat Fedorski, 68, said she was proud of Romney's selection of Ryan.
"The left likes to call our Republican vice presidents stupid," she said. "They said George Bush was stupid, Dan Quayle was stupid. You can't call Paul Ryan stupid. He's brilliant, and he knows the budget."
Fedorski said Democrats may attack Republicans for wanting to reshape Medicare, but "the big fat elephant in the room is that Medicare can't be sustained - everyone knows it. Paul Ryan has the guts to say it."
Some Republican candidates and strategists, worried about polling data on the popularity of Ryan-like Medicare changes, are working to distance themselves from the House budget chairman, however.
In a conservative district in western New York where Rep. Kathy Hochul (D) won a special election last year that was widely seen as a referendum on Ryan's budget, an adviser to Republican challenger Chris Collins told a television station he does not support Ryan's budget cuts. Brendan Doherty, a Republican running in moderate Rhode Island, has said the same, as has Maggie Brooks, a Republican running in Upstate New York.Christie Vilsack, a Democrat who is challenging Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), said she first raised questions about Ryan's budget plan when she launched her campaign last year.
"Seniors want to make sure we follow up on our promise," Vilsack said Monday at the Iowa State Fair. "We made a promise to them when they worked hard their whole lives that they would have Social Security, that Medicare would take care of them, that they would be able to enter a nursing facility.
"So we need to make sure we do that."
In response, King said Ryan's plan won't affect current beneficiaries, meaning Vilsack and other Democrats mislead voters when they say that Republicans want to "end Medicare as we know it."
"That phrase - 'as we know it' - will become very well known as the classic weasel phrase," King said during an appearance Monday at the fair. "If you change my hairdo - if you pull one hair out of my head - you have changed my hairdo 'as we know it.' "
But at the senior home in Bloomingdale where Duckworth spoke Thursday, the attack line resonated.
Asked what she knew about Ryan's plans to overhaul the program, Tess Castell, 76, said, "Essentially, it's a revamping of Medicare as we know it.
"Beyond that, I don't know a great deal."
ed.okeefe@washingtonpost.com
heldermanr@washpost.com
Helderman reported from Washington. Felicia Sonmez in Oxford, Ohio, contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1228 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 19, 2012 Sunday
Every Edition
5 Myths about political conventions
BYLINE: Martin Cohen
SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. B02
LENGTH: 1161 words
1. Nothing substantive comes out of the conventions.
Yes, the parties' standard-bearers have already been selected and presented to the public. But the conventions give the parties a chance to shape their images and platforms.
In some years, the parties have emerged from the conventions with sharply contrasting tones. For example, when the Democrats were split over the Vietnam War in 1968, the party's elites picked Vice President Hubert Humphrey at the convention in Chicago, and the antiwar faction went ballistic. Police and protesters battled in the streets, while pro- and antiwar delegates shouted each other down in the convention hall. Meanwhile, the Republican Party met in Miami Beach and had a tranquil coronation of Richard Nixon. The GOP came out looking better - and went on to win in November. And incidentally, the chaos in Chicago led to the reforms that created the modern nominating system.
The 1992 conventions pitted Republican culture warriors Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson, whose calls to "take back our country" sounded tone-deaf to many voters, against Democrats Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who projected youth, vitality and progress. The country rewarded their social liberalism in November as George H.W. Bush lost his bid for a second term.
And in 2004, each convention sought to portray its candidate as a war hero. The Democrats made John Kerry's service in Vietnam a key theme, only to see it tarnished by the swift boat ad campaign. George W. Bush, who did not see combat in Vietnam, trumpeted his strong leadership after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and during the still-popular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's manufactured military career dominated Kerry's actual one.
Considering how negative the 2012 campaignhas been, it would not be surprising if both conventions focused mostly on the flaws and shortcomings of their opponents - a classic "lesser of two evils" election.
2. The nominee's speech is the most important part of the convention.
Many of us might get our fill of the candidates before the party meetings start. However, other speeches can have a lasting effect on the rest of the campaign.
In 1980, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's attempt to challenge President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination failed, but Kennedy's words at the convention proved memorable. His"the dream shall never die" speech, imploring the party to renew its commitment to economic justice, roused convention-goers to their feet. And his endorsement of his onetime rival helped give Carter a bump in public support.
In contrast, Buchanan's "culture war" speech dragged down the Bush-Quayle ticket in 1992, turning off moderate voters with moralistic rhetoric.
Who will steal the show in 2012? My bet is on former president Bill Clinton, who will officially placePresident Obama's name in nomination, and who will probably use the opportunity to burnish his record and that of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the once-and-maybe-future presidential candidate.
3. The convention bounce is meaningless.
Convention bounces - higher favorability ratings for a candidate after the party's meeting - are generally thought to occur because many voters are just beginning to pay attention to the candidates, and their first impression is usually a good one, considering that the candidates can control the setting and message at a convention much more easily than at any other time in the campaign. The bounce may be more a reflection of hype than a measure of sustained support.
But sometimes a convention can kick-start a campaign to victory, such as Bill Clinton's in 1992. His 16-point post-convention jump in the polls, compared with George H.W. Bush's five-point rise, was the biggest since surveys began measuring the bounce in 1964.
In other years, the lack of a bounce has hurt a faltering campaign. Democrat George McGovern didn't get one in 1972, while Kerry's favorability rating went down after his 2004 convention. Those were bad signs for both candidates, who fell short in their bids for the White House. Given the latest polls, such a bounce might be more important for Mitt Romneythan for Obama.
4. The delegates are a bunch of political hacks on a taxpayer-funded junket.
First of all, the delegates travel to the conventions at their own expense. Second, you do not need to be a current or former elected official to attend. The gatherings are certainly dominated by those with political experience, but ordinary voters - with a little ambition, luck and disposable income - have a decent shot at attending.
The delegate process varies among states, but anyone can apply with the local party office. Each state is allotted delegates in proportion to its population and with regard to its partisan voting history. States that are deeper shades of blue, as measured by Democratic votes for president and for governor, have more delegates invited to the Democratic convention, for example. California has been allocated 611 Democratic delegates this year, while Delaware has 32.
5. There are no surprises.
Even though a vice presidential candidate is now more likely to be selected a few weeks ahead of time, the convention is often a coming-out party, setting the tone for the rest of his or her political career. The prototypical example occurred four years ago when Sarah Palin was thrust onto the scene by John McCain. Her folksy personality charmed or rankled, depending on where you fell on the ideological spectrum. The GOP convention was must-see television simply because the country was discovering this fascinating individual.
And in 2004, a young state senator from Illinois thrilled the Democratic crowd with a speech that showcased his life story and his belief in a better America. We all know what happened to that guy.
While Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, is a rising conservative star in Washington, most Americans don't know much about him. The Republican convention is his chance to change that. However, with Sen. Marco Rubiodelivering the speech introducing Romney, many in the party may be surprised to find themselves wishing that their nominee had made a different choice.
cohenmg@jmu.edu
Martin Cohen is a political science professor at James Madison University.
Read more from Outlook:
Five myths about the veepstakes
Five myths about campaign ads
Five myths about swing states
Friend us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Get ready for balloons, funny hats and lots of speeches. In the coming weeks, the Republican and Democratic parties will officially select their presidential nominees at their national conventions in Tampa and Charlotte, respectively. Until the modern primary and caucus system was established in the 1970s, the conventions held a lot more political significance; they were where the parties actually picked the nominees. Yet, despite the fact that we have known the identities of this year's nominees for months, the conventions still matter. Here are a few things they do - and don't - reveal.
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1229 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 19, 2012 Sunday
Regional Edition
Campaign unbecoming
BYLINE: Editorial Board
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 486 words
THE WEEK STARTED with hope that the presidential campaign would take an overdue turn to substance, and it has - sort of. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise anyone, but the past few days have shown that modern politics can transform any serious issue into a demagogic slugfest.
In fact, as the Medicare debate is demonstrating, it may be that the more serious the issue, and the more central to voters' concerns, the more it is susceptible to bumper-sticker politics: You'd slash it! No, you'd slash it! The real debate, one that may not be possible in the overheated atmosphere of a presidential campaign, needs to be over how to change the program to produce needed savings and better outcomes.
Meanwhile, the tone of the campaign grows ever nastier. After an inflammatory remark by Vice President Biden, Republican candidate Mitt Romney accused the president of running a "campaign of division and anger and hate." The Obama campaign shot back by saying Mr. Romney "seemed unhinged."
Political campaigns are rarely pretty spectacles of high-minded policy debate. Yet several phenomena mark the 2012 campaign as particularly lacking. In most recent campaigns, candidates - especially challengers, who have not had four years in office to translate ideology into action - felt compelled to present reasonably detailed programs across a range of issues. By contrast, Mr. Romney has skated across the surface on a range of issues, offering platitudes in place of programs. How would he approach the violence in Syria, the increasingly evident toll of climate change, the looming fiscal cliff? Rhetoric is abundant, but detail is lacking.
For his part, President Obama has offered only the gauziest outlines of a second-term agenda. Instead, his argument for reelection is focused on the damage he argues Mr. Romney and fellow Republicans would do. This may be enough for Mr. Obama to cobble together the necessary electoral votes, but it hardly lays the groundwork for the difficult choices, particularly on the fiscal front, that will confront the next president - and that Mr. Obama ducked during his current term.
Instead of dealing with issues, the candidates and their surrogates have been mired in arguments that are extraneous, disreputable or both. On this list: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's reckless accusation that Mr. Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. The gut-punching ad by Obama-supporting super PAC Priorities USA that effectively accuses Mr. Romney of complicity in the cancer death of the wife of a steelworker who lost his job when a plant owned by Mr. Romney's Bain Capital declared bankruptcy. Mr. Romney's false claim that Mr. Obama wants to coddle welfare recipients.
Can this campaign be saved? Both candidates are serious men. They can't be proud of the exchanges of the past few weeks - the scurrilous ads, unsourced accusations and demagogic fear-mongering. The American people deserve better.
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1230 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 19, 2012 Sunday
Suburban Edition
Ryan's Medicare plan gives Democrats familiar attack
BYLINE: Ed O'Keefe;Rosalind S. Helderman
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A03
LENGTH: 1154 words
DATELINE: BLOOMINGDALE, ILL.
BLOOMINGDALE, Ill. - Tammy Duckworth spent 10 minutes calling Bingo numbers during a game at the Bloomingdale Horizon retirement home, then she took questions.
The first was predictable enough: What are you going to do for seniors?
"First and foremost," Duckworth began, "I'm going to preserve Medicare and Social Security. I'm not going to let them turn Medicare into a voucher program."
Duckworth is a Democrat running for Congress in a district in the Chicago suburbs, and "them," of course, is shorthand for Republicans, mostly Mitt Romney and his new running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, whose Medicare proposal reemerged this week as the favorite blunt-force instrument of congressional Democrats in their fight to retake control of the House.
Ryan's elevation to the national GOP ticket has allowed Democrats to reprise their savaging of the Ryan plan with tactics they know well, having used them to great political effect over the past two years.
Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unleashed a barrage of attacks on Republican candidates with a series of robo-calls in about 50 congressional races. And the first of the DCCC's television ads since Ryan joined the GOP ticket was launched Thursday; it targeted freshman Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.) for his vote in support of Ryan's Medicare overhaul.
The ad features a clip of Benishek praising efforts to "privatize" Medicare and Social Security.
Democrats think this is a winning issue for them and are gleeful that Ryan's higher profile has made it the center of the campaign debate.
Duckworth and other Democrats said Ryan's addition to the Republican ticket only amplifies concerns they've discussed for months.
"You've got all these Harry Houdinis all over the country trying to untangle themselves from the Ryan budget," said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the DCCC. "And we're not going to let them."
Duckworth, for example, told the crowd that Ryan's proposal would abandon seniors, leaving them to fend for themselves.
"My concern is that I don't want my mom to have a $600 voucher and tell her, here, you go negotiate with an insurance company on your own," Duckworth said. "I don't think that's right."
Those in the room in Bloomingdale agreed.
"This is really ridiculous," said Fran Powrozek, 82. "We're citizens. We don't have enough money to live on the way it is. They already cut my insurance for prescription drugs."
But Powrozek and her bingo partners admitted Thursday after Duckworth spoke that they don't know much about Ryan's plan.
"For two or three days, they've been talking about him on TV," Jean Corbeil, 75, said. "They say he'll be good - I don't know."
Ryan's plan leaves Medicare benefits untouched for current retirees but, over time, would shift the program from an open-ended guarantee of care to a capped payment to seniors for them to use to purchase private insurance.
Ryan and Romney have worked to neutralize the attacks by slamming Democrats for including cuts to Medicare providers in the 2010 Obama health-care overhaul. Ryan assumed those same cuts in his budget proposal adopted by the House this year, but Romney has said he would restore them.
"We want this debate. We need this debate. And we will win this debate," Ryan told a crowd in Oxford, Ohio, last week.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio)told his fellow Republicans on Thursday not to fear the Democratic attacks on the Ryan budget. During a conference call, he implored his colleagues to remember their year-long focus on job creation and the economy.
"The best defense on Medicare is a good offense," he said. "And Paul Ryan gives us the ability to play offense."
And on Friday, the National Republican Congressional Committee launched an offensive, releasing a new ad titled "Mediscare" that targeted Rep. Mark S. Critz (D-Pa.).
The race is on now as each side tries to define the Ryan proposal in order to reap some political advantage with voters.
Duckworth's opponent is GOP incumbent Rep. Joe Walsh, who echoed Boehner's line Thursday. "I'm not defending Ryan's plan, I'm staying on offense," he said in an interview. "Tammy Duckworth and Democrats are going to run around scaring seniors, and I don't think it's going to work. I think America is ready to grow up."
Nobody asked Walsh about Ryan's plan when he met with supporters Thursday night at a barbecue restaurant 10 minutes from where Duckworth spoke. But afterward, retired flight attendant Pat Fedorski, 68, said she was proud of Romney's selection of Ryan.
"The left likes to call our Republican vice presidents stupid," she said. "They said George Bush was stupid, Dan Quayle was stupid. You can't call Paul Ryan stupid. He's brilliant, and he knows the budget."
Fedorski said Democrats may attack Republicans for wanting to reshape Medicare, but "the big fat elephant in the room is that Medicare can't be sustained - everyone knows it. Paul Ryan has the guts to say it."
Some Republican candidates and strategists, worried about polling data on the popularity of Ryan-like Medicare changes, are working to distance themselves from the House budget chairman, however.
In a conservative district in western New York where Rep. Kathy Hochul (D) won a special election last year that was widely seen as a referendum on Ryan's budget, an adviser to Republican challenger Chris Collins told a television station he does not support Ryan's budget cuts. Brendan Doherty, a Republican running in moderate Rhode Island, has said the same, as has Maggie Brooks, a Republican running in Upstate New York.
Christie Vilsack, a Democrat who is challenging Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), said she first raised questions about Ryan's budget plan when she launched her campaign last year.
"Seniors want to make sure we follow up on our promise," Vilsack said Monday at the Iowa State Fair. "We made a promise to them when they worked hard their whole lives that they would have Social Security, that Medicare would take care of them, that they would be able to enter a nursing facility.
"So we need to make sure we do that."
In response, King said Ryan's plan won't affect current beneficiaries, meaning Vilsack and other Democrats mislead voters when they say that Republicans want to "end Medicare as we know it."
"That phrase - 'as we know it' - will become very well known as the classic weasel phrase," King said during an appearance Monday at the fair. "If you change my hairdo - if you pull one hair out of my head - you have changed my hairdo 'as we know it.' "
But at the senior home in Bloomingdale where Duckworth spoke Thursday, the attack line resonated.
Asked what she knew about Ryan's plans to overhaul the program, Tess Castell, 76, said, "Essentially, it's a revamping of Medicare as we know it.
"Beyond that, I don't know a great deal."
ed.okeefe@washingtonpost.com
heldermanr@washpost.com
Helderman reported from Washington. Felicia Sonmez in Oxford, Ohio, contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1231 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 18, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
Pipeline spans tricky terrain
BYLINE: Steven Mufson
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2109 words
Bob Bernt, a bear of a man, a rancher and a lifelong Republican, had about 25 people over recently for a pork-and-beans cookout.
The ranchers and farmers who drove their pickups to Bernt's place were almost all Republicans, of one stripe or another. One sported a Ron Paul button. Another said he had lived - until recently - as "no opinion Tom." Some admired the tea party; others derided it.
After an afternoon of floating down a nearby river, sampling Bernt's organic cheese and ice cream, and listening to a cowboy poet, they sat under a large white tent to talk about what really brought them together: standing up to the big pipeline company TransCanada.
When TransCanada said its $7 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas would pass about two miles from this tiny town in central Nebraska - crossing 92 miles of the state's ecologically sensitive Sand Hills and parts of the vast Ogallala Aquifer - it stirred opposition throughout the state. Political boundaries crumbled as the pipeline proposal united Nebraskans across party lines and divided them within. Ultimately, it became a political litmus test in the presidential race. Its route riled Nebraskans who fear water contamination and resent the ability of a corporation - especially a foreign one - to wield the right of eminent domain.
People such as "no opinion Tom" Genung, whose mother-in-law meekly accepted TransCanada's initial offer, took his protest to Washington, where he was arrested outside the White House. Jim Knopic, who learned about activism fighting big hog-raising companies, got into the fight. And Bernt, who sells beef, dairy products and vegetables, grew upset that he might lose his organic certification if the pipeline crossed under the Cedar River where his cattle drink.
So when President Obama rejected TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline proposal, saying his administration needed more time to weigh the environmental impact of the route through Nebraska, he was practicing his own version of "triangulation" politics, playing to environmental groups and making common cause with people in a solidly red state.
"I was really impressed with that," Bernt said of Obama's decision in January. "He showed more backbone that I thought he had."
Months after Obama had hoped to put the issue to rest, the pipeline remains a confounding political topic with traps for both presidential candidates. GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has played up the issue, but here some conservatives are put off by his unequivocal support for the project with scant mention of its environmental impact.
"Nebraska, even though we're one of the reddest of red states, we have this prairie populism streak," said Philip M. Young, a political consultant and former executive director of the state Republican Party.
At the same time, Obama must tread carefully in an election year in which Democrats as well as Republicans are seduced by the promise of jobs - even if it may be an illusion. He has backed the 485-mile southern leg of the pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to the Texas Gulf Coast, and last month TransCanada received the last of three permits it needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction.
Here in Nebraska, the politics of the Keystone XL pipeline are especially murky. TransCanada has changed the route so that only 10 miles will lie in areas with shallow water sources. The mostly Republican unicameral legislature, which stunned TransCanada by taking a unanimous position against the original path in December, voted in favor of a revised route if it won approval from the governor and the state Department of Environmental Quality. In April, TransCanada submitted its alternative route. "This coalition forced some odd partnerships," Ken Haar, a state senator who led the fight to alter the route, said at Bernt's cookout. "People in this area want government out of their lives, yet they are working with [the activist group] Bold Nebraska and the Sierra Club." For his part, Haar won gratitude from farmers and ranchers, but he strained his relationships with construction unions, which support the pipeline.
Of TransCanada's new route, Haar said, "It's not a perfect solution, and different people will be unhappy." But he added that most Nebraskans probably think it's a victory.
Pipeline politics
That victory could spell defeat for Haar, however. He is worried that wealthy pro-pipeline and conservative forces are set to pour money into an effort to defeat him this November. He can already imagine the negative ads.
The politics of the pipeline could also echo far beyond the Nebraska statehouse.
In the race for the U.S. Senate, crucial for Democrats trying to hang onto a majority, former Nebraska governor and former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey has tiptoed around the pipeline issue. His opponent Deb Fischer, a state senator from a Sand Hills region and a favorite of the tea party, was among the legislators in Nebraska to vote unanimously against the pipeline initially, but she now supports it.
On July 4, both candidates dashed from parade to parade, ending the day of more-than-100-degree swelter in Seward, a town of roughly 6,000 whose population increases fivefold every Independence Day. They took their places behind the American Legion band, the Nebraska Mother of the Year and a United Methodist church group singing "You're a Grand Old Flag." Fischer, 61, who upset the Republican establishment candidate in the primary, paused under a tree after the parade for some questions.
"I think Nebraska has a process in place. We'll see what the governor does and the administration does," she said. "I'm in favor of the pipeline being built."
But she is attuned to the eminent domain issue, which rankles Nebraskans, violating their sense of propriety. In 2006, she introduced a bill that became state law to limit the effect of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2005 and restrict the use of eminent domain if it were for "an economic development purpose" or on agricultural land.There was no mention of pipelines, however, which she now places in a different category. "I understand the feeling of people who face a similar thing whenever a road is built in an area or a transmission line," she said. "Would I want it? No. But that's what we do in the United States."
Asked about the extra greenhouse gases that would be emitted extracting the heavy oil sands crude that will flow down the pipeline, Fischer said simply, "I'm not going to get into a discussion of climate change."
That, however, is where Kerrey starts. In an interview with the Omaha World-Herald, he said that climate change was a key issue that propelled him into the race.
But Kerrey also told the Omaha newspaper that he had not thoroughly reviewed the pros and cons of tapping Canada's oil sands. "It may be that that genie's out of the bottle already," he said, "and if you're down to a choice of summarily shipping it West and having it end up being sent to China or shipping it south and used by the United States, it's probably difficult to oppose it at this point. But I haven't reached an absolute decision on it."
"Bob has taken the position that if they're going to build it, it is better to send [the Canadian oil] to the United States than to China," his campaign manager, Paul Johnson, said in an interview. "If the appropriate authorities approve it, that's fine with him."
Job expectations
On the national stage, the politics of the pipeline have little to do with the Ogallala Aquifer or even eminent domain. It has everything to do with promises of jobs and a secure supply of crude oil.
Romney has said that he will approve the Keystone XL his first day in office. "Day One, President Romney immediately approves the Keystone pipeline, creating thousands of jobs that Obama blocked," says the narrator in one of the candidate's ads.
In April, Romney told state Republican Party leaders at a retreat in Arizona, "I will build that pipeline if I have to do it myself."
Obama has embraced the southern portion that would run from Cushing, a major storage terminal and pipeline hub that is a bottleneck for oil moving south from Canada and North Dakota. And the language Obama used when he rejected TransCanada's application in January suggested he was open to a revised proposal for the northern leg.
At that time, Obama was being pressed by congressional Republicans who set a Feb. 21 deadline for the pipeline's approval as part of a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut, an effort to wrangle a permit from the administration.
"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," the president said.
Eventual approval might anger Obama's supporters in the environmental movement, and some major donors have threatened to hold back contributions. But openness to the pipeline falls in line with public opinion. About six in 10 Americans said the government should approve the pipeline while fewer than two in 10 oppose it, according to a Washington Post poll. Even among Democrats, 48 percent say it should be built; while 26 percent say it should not be built.
One reason for the support: 83 percent of those polled said the pipeline, if built, would "create a significant number of jobs" while far fewer, only 34 percent, said it would "significantly damage the environment."
Even among those who think the pipeline would cause significant environmental damage, there is a 39 percent to 42 percent split on whether it should be built. Among those who predict damage, 80 percent think the pipeline also would create a significant number of jobs, according to the Washington Post poll.
This widespread belief may be the result of an ad blitz by Republicans and the American Petroleum Institute, which have used inflated numbers for the jobs that the pipeline project would create.
TransCanada has said in interviews and regulatory filings that the construction of the pipeline would require 13,000 "job years" - meaning 6,500 people working two years - plus create about 7,000 jobs among companies supplying pipe, valves, software, pumps and other goods needed during construction. Those figures fall far short of the figures often cited by House Republicans and an industry consulting firm in support of the project.
Long term, however, the pipeline would create few direct U.S. jobs. The pipeline will be monitored from TransCanada's computerized control room in Calgary, and pump stations and pipelines require little attention or maintenance, with technicians visiting once or twice a week.
TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling said in an interview that there would be job benefits from replacing oil imported by the United States from other parts of the world with oil imported from Canada, which generally spends more of its oil money in the United States than other U.S. trade partners.
Little impact
Steele City, population 54, near the southern border of Nebraska shows the cycle of job creation - and evaporation. Only a couple of years ago, TransCanada installed another Canadian crude oil pipeline, also called Keystone. It ran farther east of the Sand Hills, cost $6 billion to build and raised little fuss.
For a while, Steele City saw an influx of workers. They set up about 20 trailers and frequented the Salty Dog Tavern, a local bar.
"The pipeline was good for me," said Margo D'Angelo, who has owned the Salty Dog for 27 years. The workers didn't drink much, she said, but they often came to the saloon for lunch and left good tips. She was able to buy a new air conditioner by the time they were done.
"There were some rough characters," she said. "We had to squish out some of them, but there were others who were the nicest people you'd met."
Then the workers left.
Today, Steele City seems a lot like it did before the Keystone pipeline came through. The streets are deserted. The school population is dwindling.
To celebrate July 4, D'Angelo and her husband, Greg Compton, an ironworker, drank quite a few beers in the clearing behind the tavern. One other couple was there with a black pickup truck, doors flung open, playing country music.
D'Angelo and Compton launched 3½-foot-tall paper lanterns by lighting wicks inside; the hot air from the flames pushed the lanterns up. Gradually, gracefully the lanterns rose into the sky, carried by the wind until they disappeared from view.
mufsons@washpost.com
Jon Cohen contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 18, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1232 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 18, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
Campaign unbecoming
BYLINE: Editorial Board
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 489 words
THE WEEK STARTED with hope that the presidential campaign would take an overdue turn to substance, and it has - sort of. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise anyone, but the past few days have shown that modern politics can transform any serious issue into a demagogic slugfest.
In fact, as the Medicare debate is demonstrating, it may be that the more serious the issue, and the more central to voters' concerns, the more it is susceptible to bumper-sticker politics: You'd slash it! No, you'dslash it! The real debate, one that may not be possible in the overheated atmosphere of a presidential campaign, needs to be over how to change the program to produce needed savings and better outcomes.
Meanwhile, the tone of the campaign grows ever nastier. After an inflammatory remark by Vice President Biden, Republican candidate Mitt Romney accused the president of running a "campaign of division and anger and hate." The Obama campaign shot back by saying Mr. Romney "seemed unhinged." Political campaigns are rarely pretty spectacles of high-minded policy debate. Yet several phenomena mark the 2012 campaign as particularly lacking. In most recent campaigns, candidates - especially challengers, who have not had four years in office to translate ideology into action - felt compelled to present reasonably detailed programs across a range of issues. By contrast, Mr. Romney has skated across the surface on a range of issues, offering platitudes in place of programs. How would he approach the violence in Syria, the increasingly evident toll of climate change, the looming fiscal cliff? Rhetoric is abundant, but detail is lacking.
For his part, President Obama has offered only the gauziest outlines of a second-term agenda. Instead, his argument for reelection is focused on the damage he argues Mr. Romney and fellow Republicans would do. This may be enough for Mr. Obama to cobble together the necessary electoral votes, but it hardly lays the groundwork for the difficult choices, particularly on the fiscal front, that will confront the next president - and that Mr. Obama ducked during his current term.
Instead of dealing with issues, the candidates and their surrogates have been mired in arguments that are extraneous, disreputable or both. On this list: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's reckless accusation that Mr. Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. The gut-punching ad by Obama-supporting super PAC Priorities USA that effectively accuses Mr. Romney of complicity in the cancer death of the wife of a steelworker who lost his job when a plant owned by Mr. Romney's Bain Capital declared bankruptcy. Mr. Romney's false claim that Mr. Obama wants to coddle welfare recipients. Can this campaign be saved? Both candidates are serious men. They can't be proud of the exchanges of the past few weeks - the scurrilous ads, unsourced accusations and demagogic fear-mongering. The American people deserve better.
LOAD-DATE: August 18, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1233 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 18, 2012 Saturday 5:26 PM EST
Senate surprises stoke majority ambitions on both sides;
If you're watching the 2012 battle for the Senate, keep your head on a swivel.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1724 words
Senate Democrats' and Republicans' campaign arms would be wise to heed the words of Oscar Wilde, the 19th century Irish dramatist: "To expect the unexpected shows a thoroughly modern intellect."
With nearly all of the major Senate primaries wrapped up, a series of unexpected events has swung momentum to and fro in the battle for the Senate, with the end result being a landscape offering a path to the majority for both parties.
Earlier this week in Wisconsin, Senate Republicans unquestionably scored a victory when Tommy Thompson won the GOP nomination. Thompson served four terms as governor, so he knows a thing or two about winning statewide races. His moderate political profile makes him more of a threat to win independent voters than any other Republican who ran. And he enjoys virtually universal name recognition in the state.
Thompson managed to win in the same environment that establishmentarians like Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R) couldn't successfully navigate. A Thompson victory appeared a dubious proposition a few months ago, with conservatives relentlessly slamming him from the right over things like his previous support for an individual health-care mandate.
Equally unforeseen several months ago was Rep. Todd Akin's (R) nomination in the Missouri Senate race last week, which was a welcome outcome for Senate Democrats. Akin parted ways with his D.C. consultants late in 2011, committed several gaffes and looked like he was destined to watch self-funding businessman John Brunner walk away with the nomination. But with a little help from some unlikely Democratic friends, Akin unexpectedly prevailed in a three-way race. Republicans are still favored to pick up the Missouri seat, but Akin's unpredictable streak means the party's grasp on it is a bit more tenuous.
So is the Democratic outlook in Nevada, where an ethics investigation surrounding Rep. Shelley Berkley (D) has cast a cloud over a campaign that represents a rare Democratic pickup opportunity this cycle. The House Ethics Committee announced last month it would launch a full investigation into the question of whether Berkley used her position in the House to help benefit the financial interests of her husband. The GOP attack ads on the subject virtually write themselves (and already have).
Finally, virtually no one anticipated Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) sudden retirement announcement in February, a development that threw a seat that was nearly certain to stay in the GOP's hands into play. Independent former governor Angus King's decision to join the race to replace her was even more good news for Democrats. Party powerbrokers are wagering that King - the overwhelming favorite in the race - would caucus with them if he is elected.
There will likely be a few fall surprises yet to come, which could be equally or even more decisive in the battle for the Senate. The campaigns of Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) and Ohio Republican Treasurer Josh Mandel haven't lit the world on fire, but a flood of outside money hitting their Democratic opponents has kept the two afloat in the polls. If either is able to pull it together for the next 11 weeks, the GOP could compete in swing states not counted among Democrats' most vulnerable right now.
In Arizona and North Dakota, a pair of strong Democratic recruits, Richard Carmona and Heidi Heitkamp, each have the potential to make their races interesting down the stretch in states that once looked like sure things for the GOP. And in Indiana, Rep. Joe Donnelly (D) is hanging around with Republican state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in recent polling.
All of this is, as they say, why they play the game.
Now, without further ado, to the Line!
(A reminder that the races below are ordered according to likelihood that they will change parties, with No. 1 being the most likely.)
10. New Mexico (Democratic-controlled): This one remains in the 10 spot, but it's at risk of falling off the line.All of the recent polls in the state have shown Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) with a lead on former congresswoman Heather Wilson (R), and this is a Democratic-leaning state. (Caveat: Basically, all the polls have come from Democratic-leaning pollsters.) Meanwhile, the polls in Indiana and Florida show that both of those states are increasingly competitive. We'll keep an eye on it; for now, Wilson's record as a strong campaigner keeps her race on this list. (Previous ranking: 10)
9. Nevada (Republican-controlled): Berkley hasn't led in any poll conducted in the 2012 calendar year, and her ethics issues aren't helping her right now. A race that began as what looked to be a pretty pure toss-up in a pretty pure swing state is now tilting in Heller's favor. But we're still waiting for a good poll to tell us whether Berkley is paying a major price for her problems. For now, it's all in the realm of educated guesses. (Update 12:59 p.m.: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has now released a poll showing Berkley leading Heller 44 percent to 42 percent.) (Previous ranking: 8)
8. Virginia (D): Virtually every live-caller poll has shown the match-up between former Republican senator George Allen and former Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine to be a tossup. The most recent Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll was no exception, showing Kaine with a two-point lead over Allen, an advantage which was inside the margin of error. Both candidates have been pursuing ticket splitters, a rare commodity considering how closely-aligned each is with his party's presidential nominee. Kaine's fundraising has been stronger than Allen's, but that data point is more useful as an enthusiasm gauge, because both sides will have the cash to compete. In a race as close as the polling shows, the "turnout will matter" cliche is especially applicable in the commonwealth. (Previous ranking: 9)
7. Massachusetts (R): Democrat Elizabeth Warren's most ardent supporters may have been disappointed that she will not be the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. But delivering a speech before Bill Clinton isn't a bad consolation prize. The convention is also an opportunity for Warren to link herself more closely to Obama. And with polling from the spring showing her winning an unusually small share of the president's supporters, it might be just what she needs. The race remains close, as a late July MassINC poll showed Warren leading Brown by two points, which amounted to a statistical tie. (Previous ranking: 6)
6. Wisconsin (D): While Thompson's win is certainly a win for the GOP, that hardly means this race is over. Wisconsin is still a swing state, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) has been raising far more money than Thompson, and the last time Thompson was elected was 1998. The big question now is whether he can rekindle the magic that won him four terms in the 1980s and 1990s and run the kind of campaign one needs to run in 2012. Taking 34 percent in the primary is not a resounding statement from a popular ex-governor; it was good enough, but much remains to be seen. (Previous ranking: 7)
5. Montana (D): Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) has voted against Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget twice. But Ryan'saddition to the national ticket has given Democrats a new opportunity to try to tie Rehberg to the House budget chairman in a state with a sizable senior population. At the same time, doing so would highlight where Rehberg has broken with his party, which is an advantage for the GOP here. Both candidates have been underscoring Montana-first themes in TV ads (wolves!) designed as preemptive remedies for membership in an unpopular Congress. But in the fall, outside groups will remind voters about the connections each candidate has to Washington. (Previous ranking: 5)
4. Missouri (D): National Republicans were heartened when Akin's first ad in the general election went negative on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). Akin, in the past, has resisted the urge to run negative ads. But Democrats are giving as good as they get, and they have already launched ads attacking Akin for his past statements in support of Social Security privatization and against federal student loans. This race mirrors the presidential in that, if it's all about McCaskill and Obama, the GOP probably wins; if it's all about Akin, Democrats have a much better shot. (Previous ranking: 4)
3. North Dakota (D): Democrats should be pleased with former attorney general Heidi Heitkamp's better-than-expected performance so far. But American Crossroads and its allied nonprofit Crossroads GPS continue to hammer her on the air in this Republican state. Romney's selection of Ryan as his running mate could be an opportunity for Democrats to change the subject from Republican attacks over Heitkamp's support for the federal health-care law to Rep. Rick Berg's (R) votes for Ryan's budget and its Medicare overhaul. But overall, the fundamentals of this race continue to favor Berg. (Previous ranking: 3)
2. Nebraska (D): Former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey isn't expected to attend the Democratic National Convention, but that's not going to be enough to stop GOP attacks tying him to the president. (There is video online of him saying the longer he lives in New York, "the further to the left I get on health care.") Kerrey deserves credit for solid fundraising, but in this red state, money alone won't be enough to catch Republican nominee Deb Fischer, who has proven to be a steady candidate thus far. (Previous ranking: 2)
1. Maine (R): A new Republican-leaning poll here shows King's lead isn't as big as earlier polls had it. The Moore Consulting poll has King leading Secretary of State Charlie Summers 46 percent to 28 percent. But that's still a sizeable lead, and more importantly: Democratic nominee Cynthia Dill remains mired in the single digits (8 percent). Republicans need her to rise in the polls and cut into King's numbers, but so far, there is little indication that she's doing that. She did recently get the backing of former governor John Baldacci (D), but Baldacci left office with very poor approval numbers, so we're not sure how much that helps. (Previous ranking: 1)
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1234 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 18, 2012 Saturday
Regional Edition
Campaign unbecoming
BYLINE: Editorial Board
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 486 words
THE WEEK STARTED with hope that the presidential campaign would take an overdue turn to substance, and it has - sort of. Perhaps it shouldn't surprise anyone, but the past few days have shown that modern politics can transform any serious issue into a demagogic slugfest.
In fact, as the Medicare debate is demonstrating, it may be that the more serious the issue, and the more central to voters' concerns, the more it is susceptible to bumper-sticker politics: You'd slash it! No, you'd slash it! The real debate, one that may not be possible in the overheated atmosphere of a presidential campaign, needs to be over how to change the program to produce needed savings and better outcomes.
Meanwhile, the tone of the campaign grows ever nastier. After an inflammatory remark by Vice President Biden, Republican candidate Mitt Romney accused the president of running a "campaign of division and anger and hate." The Obama campaign shot back by saying Mr. Romney "seemed unhinged."
Political campaigns are rarely pretty spectacles of high-minded policy debate. Yet several phenomena mark the 2012 campaign as particularly lacking. In most recent campaigns, candidates - especially challengers, who have not had four years in office to translate ideology into action - felt compelled to present reasonably detailed programs across a range of issues. By contrast, Mr. Romney has skated across the surface on a range of issues, offering platitudes in place of programs. How would he approach the violence in Syria, the increasingly evident toll of climate change, the looming fiscal cliff? Rhetoric is abundant, but detail is lacking.
For his part, President Obama has offered only the gauziest outlines of a second-term agenda. Instead, his argument for reelection is focused on the damage he argues Mr. Romney and fellow Republicans would do. This may be enough for Mr. Obama to cobble together the necessary electoral votes, but it hardly lays the groundwork for the difficult choices, particularly on the fiscal front, that will confront the next president - and that Mr. Obama ducked during his current term.
Instead of dealing with issues, the candidates and their surrogates have been mired in arguments that are extraneous, disreputable or both. On this list: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's reckless accusation that Mr. Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. The gut-punching ad by Obama-supporting super PAC Priorities USA that effectively accuses Mr. Romney of complicity in the cancer death of the wife of a steelworker who lost his job when a plant owned by Mr. Romney's Bain Capital declared bankruptcy. Mr. Romney's false claim that Mr. Obama wants to coddle welfare recipients.
Can this campaign be saved? Both candidates are serious men. They can't be proud of the exchanges of the past few weeks - the scurrilous ads, unsourced accusations and demagogic fear-mongering. The American people deserve better.
LOAD-DATE: August 18, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1235 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 18, 2012 Saturday
Correction Appended
Suburban Edition
Pipeline spans tricky terrain
BYLINE: Steven Mufson
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 2089 words
DATELINE: IN SPALDING, NEB.
Bob Bernt, a bear of a man, a rancher and a lifelong Republican, had about 25 people over recently for a pork-and-beans cookout.
The ranchers and farmers who drove their pickups to Bernt's place were almost all Republicans, of one stripe or another. One sported a Ron Paul button. Another said he had lived - until recently - as "no opinion Tom." Some admired the tea party; others derided it.
After an afternoon of floating down a nearby river, sampling Bernt's organic cheese and ice cream, and listening to a cowboy poet, they sat under a large white tent to talk about what really brought them together: standing up to the big pipeline company TransCanada.
When TransCanada said its $7 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas would pass about two miles from this tiny town in central Nebraska - crossing 92 miles of the state's ecologically sensitive Sand Hills and parts of the vast Ogallala Aquifer- it stirred opposition throughout the state. Political boundaries crumbled as the pipeline proposal united Nebraskans across party lines and divided them within. Ultimately, it became a political litmus test in the presidential race.
Its route riled Nebraskans who fear water contamination and resent the ability of a corporation - especially a foreign one - to wield the right of eminent domain.
People such as "no opinion Tom" Genung, whose mother-in-law meekly accepted TransCanada's initial offer, took his protest to Washington, where he was arrested outside the White House. Jim Knopic, who learned about activism fighting big hog-raising companies, got into the fight. And Bernt, who sells beef, dairy products and vegetables, grew upset that he might lose his organic certification if the pipeline crossed under the Cedar River where his cattle drink.
So when President Obama rejected TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline proposal, saying his administration needed more time to weigh the environmental impact of the route through Nebraska, he was practicing his own version of "triangulation" politics, playing to environmental groups and making common cause with people in a solidly red state.
"I was really impressed with that," Bernt said of Obama's decision in January. "He showed more backbone that I thought he had."
Months after Obama had hoped to put the issue to rest, the pipeline remains a confounding political topic with traps for both presidential candidates. GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has played up the issue, but here some conservatives are put off by his unequivocal support for the project with scant mention of its environmental impact.
"Nebraska, even though we're one of the reddest of red states, we have this prairie populism streak," said Philip M. Young, a political consultant and former executive director of the state Republican Party.
At the same time, Obama must tread carefully in an election year in which Democrats as well as Republicans are seduced by the promise of jobs - even if it may be an illusion. He has backed the 485-mile southern leg of the pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to the Texas Gulf Coast, and last month TransCanada received the last of three permitsit needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction.
Here in Nebraska, the politics of the Keystone XL pipeline are especially murky. TransCanada has changed the route so that only 10 miles will lie in areas with shallow water sources. The mostly Republican unicameral legislature, which stunned TransCanada by taking a unanimous position against the original path in December, voted in favor of a revised route if it won approval from the governor and the state Department of Environmental Quality. In April, TransCanada submitted its alternative route.
"This coalition forced some odd partnerships," Ken Haar, a state senator who led the fight to alter the route, said at Bernt's cookout. "People in this area want government out of their lives, yet they are working with [the activist group] Bold Nebraska and the Sierra Club." For his part, Haar won gratitude from farmers and ranchers, but he strained his relationships with construction unions, which support the pipeline.
Of TransCanada's new route, Haar said, "It's not a perfect solution, and different people will be unhappy." But he added that most Nebraskans probably think it's a victory.
Pipeline politics
That victory could spell defeat for Haar, however. He is worried that wealthy pro-pipeline and conservative forces are set to pour money into an effort to defeat him this November. He can already imagine the negative ads.
The politics of the pipeline could also echo far beyond the Nebraska statehouse.
In the race for the U.S. Senate, crucial for Democrats trying to hang onto a majority, former Nebraska governor and former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey has tiptoed around the pipeline issue. His opponent Deb Fischer, a state senator from a Sand Hills region and a favorite of the tea party, was among the legislators in Nebraska to vote unanimously against the pipeline initially, but she now supports it.
On July 4, both candidates dashed from parade to parade, ending the day of more-than-100-degree swelter in Seward, a town of roughly 6,000 whose population increases fivefold every Independence Day. They took their places behind the American Legion band, the Nebraska Mother of the Year and a United Methodist church group singing "You're a Grand Old Flag."
Fischer, 61, who upset the Republican establishment candidate in the primary, paused under a tree after the parade for some questions.
"I think Nebraska has a process in place. We'll see what the governor does and the administration does," she said. "I'm in favor of the pipeline being built."
But she is attuned to the eminent domain issue, which rankles Nebraskans, violating their sense of propriety. In 2006, she introduced a bill that became state law to limit the effect of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2005 and restrict the use of eminent domain if it were for "an economic development purpose" or on agricultural land.
There was no mention of pipelines, however, which she now places in a different category. "I understand the feeling of people who face a similar thing whenever a road is built in an area or a transmission line," she said. "Would I want it? No. But that's what we do in the United States."
Asked about the extra greenhouse gases that would be emitted extracting the heavy oil sands crude that will flow down the pipeline, Fischer said simply, "I'm not going to get into a discussion of climate change."
That, however, is where Kerrey starts. In an interview with the Omaha World-Herald, he said that climate change was a key issue that propelled him into the race.
But Kerrey also told the Omaha newspaper that he had not thoroughly reviewed the pros and cons of tapping Canada's oil sands. "It may be that that genie's out of the bottle already," he said, "and if you're down to a choice of summarily shipping it West and having it end up being sent to China or shipping it south and used by the United States, it's probably difficult to oppose it at this point. But I haven't reached an absolute decision on it."
"Bob has taken the position that if they're going to build it, it is better to send [the Canadian oil] to the United States than to China," his campaign manager, Paul Johnson, said in an interview. "If the appropriate authorities approve it, that's fine with him."
Job expectations
On the national stage, the politics of the pipeline have little to do with the Ogallala Aquifer or even eminent domain. It has everything to do with promises of jobs and a secure supply of crude oil.
Romney has said that he will approve the Keystone XL his first day in office. "Day One, President Romney immediately approves the Keystone pipeline, creating thousands of jobs that Obama blocked," says the narrator in one of the candidate's ads.
In April, Romney told state Republican Party leaders at a retreat in Arizona, "I will build that pipeline if I have to do it myself."
Obama has embraced the southern portion that would run from Cushing, a major storage terminal and pipeline hub that is a bottleneck for oil moving south from Canada and North Dakota. And the language Obama used when he rejected TransCanada's application in January suggested he was open to a revised proposal for the northern leg.
At that time, Obama was being pressed by congressional Republicans who set a Feb. 21 deadline for the pipeline's approval as part of a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut, an effort to wrangle a permit from the administration.
"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," the president said.
Eventual approval might anger Obama's supporters in the environmental movement, and some major donors have threatened to hold back contributions. But openness to the pipeline falls in line with public opinion. About six in 10 Americans said the government should approve the pipeline while fewer than two in 10 oppose it, according to a Washington Post poll. Even among Democrats, 48 percent say it should be built; while 26 percent say it should not be built.
One reason for the support: 83 percent of those polled said the pipeline, if built, would "create a significant number of jobs" while far fewer, only 34 percent, said it would "significantly damage the environment."
Even among those who think the pipeline would cause significant environmental damage, there is a 39 percent to 42 percent split on whether it should be built. Among those who predict damage, 80 percent think the pipeline also would create a significant number of jobs, according to the Washington Post poll.
This widespread belief may be the result of an ad blitz by Republicans and the American Petroleum Institute, which have used inflated numbers for the jobs that the pipeline project would create.
TransCanada has said in interviews and regulatory filings that the construction of the pipeline would require 13,000 "job years" - meaning 6,500 people working two years - plus create about 7,000 jobs among companies supplying pipe, valves, software, pumps and other goods needed during construction. Those figures fall far short of the figures often cited by House Republicans and an industry consulting firm in support of the project.
Long term, however, the pipeline would create few direct U.S. jobs. The pipeline will be monitored from TransCanada's computerized control room in Calgary, and pump stations and pipelines require little attention or maintenance, with technicians visiting once or twice a week.
TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling said in an interview that there would be job benefits from replacing oil imported by the United States from other parts of the world with oil imported from Canada, which generally spends more of its oil money in the United States than other U.S. trade partners.
Little impact
Steele City, population 54, near the southern border of Nebraska shows the cycle of job creation - and evaporation. Only a couple of years ago, TransCanada installed another Canadian crude oil pipeline, also called Keystone. It ran farther east of the Sand Hills, cost $6 billion to build and raised little fuss.
For a while, Steele City saw an influx of workers. They set up about 20 trailers and frequented the Salty Dog Tavern, a local bar.
"The pipeline was good for me," said Margo D'Angelo, who has owned the Salty Dog for 27 years. The workers didn't drink much, she said, but they often came to the saloon for lunch and left good tips. She was able to buy a new air conditioner by the time they were done.
"There were some rough characters," she said. "We had to squish out some of them, but there were others who were the nicest people you'd met."
Then the workers left.
Today, Steele City seems a lot like it did before the Keystone pipeline came through. The streets are deserted. The school population is dwindling.
To celebrate July 4, D'Angelo and her husband, Greg Compton, an ironworker, drank quite a few beers in the clearing behind the tavern. One other couple was there with a black pickup truck, doors flung open, playing country music.
D'Angelo and Compton launched 3½-foot-tall paper lanterns by lighting wicks inside; the hot air from the flames pushed the lanterns up. Gradually, gracefully the lanterns rose into the sky, carried by the wind until they disappeared from view.
mufsons@washpost.com
Jon Cohen contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 18, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
CORRECTION-DATE: August 19, 2012
CORRECTION: A map with an Aug. 18 Page One article about the Keystone XL oil pipeline transposed the labels of North Dakota and South Dakota.
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1236 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 17, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Long-Term Jobless Regroup to Fight the Odds
BYLINE: By JENNIFER MEDINA
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1148 words
CORONA, Calif. -- The analysts pore over the numbers every month, the full menagerie of economic indicators. President Obama and Mitt Romney trade barbs over who is at fault for a sluggish recovery. But here, in a region with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, other numbers often loom larger.There are the roughly 1,600 résumés that Byron Reeves has sent out since he lost his job in accounting nearly four years ago, and the paltry 10 or so interviews they have produced. There is the $300 check that Yundra Thomas could not write to send his daughter to band camp, because he has been out of work for six months.
Each week, Mr. Reeves and Mr. Thomas gather with 40 or so other unemployed workers in a small, barren and fluorescent-lit room here, in a kind of self-help program that is part of California's official effort to help residents find jobs. Most have been unemployed for months or years. Time spent with them at several gatherings over many months reveals a postrecession landscape where grim frustration battles with the simple desire to find a way out.
They were once advertising executives, engineers, social workers, teachers and purchasing managers. Now they come week after week, dressed for the office, carrying binders full of résumés and leads for potential jobs. They refine what they call their ''60-second commercial'' -- a way to pitch themselves to nearly anyone they meet. When the three-hour meetings end, they mosey over, some reluctantly, to a table packed with day-old bread donated by a supermarket.
With a state unemployment rate of 10.7 percent, California officials struggle to find ways to get people back to work. In the sprawling suburbs east of Los Angeles that make up the Inland Empire, the job market seems more upbeat than it has been for months, but unemployment remains at 12.6 percent.
''You come in thinking you know everything, because you've been working for years,'' Mr. Reeves, 55, said after one recent meeting. ''You think you'll bounce back quickly. Then, after a while, you get nothing and realize that in your entire career you've only had three or four jobs. So maybe asking other people what they're doing would help.''
Finding a job is particularly difficult for people like those who gather here each week. These are not unskilled workers looking for entry-level jobs. They are men and women in their 40s and 50s who were midlevel managers with salaries that made them comfortable enough to buy homes and take vacations. Nearly all have college diplomas, and some have advanced degrees.
The group, called Experience Unlimited in a nod to its members' abilities, functions as much as a support group as a training ground; participants offer each other encouragement that the next interview will turn out better as quickly as they exchange tips on résumé writing and networking. Less educated workers are still much more likely than college graduates to find themselves among the long-term unemployed, but that is little comfort to those like Mr. Reeves and Mr. Thomas.
At times, even with the most optimistic intentions, job-seeking can feel almost crushingly absurd. One recent morning, a human-resource manager for the local branches of the Lowe's home-improvement chain made a pitch for floor sales jobs.
''What we're looking for is someone who enjoys interacting with customers and closing the sale, so as long as you have some experience with customer service, we have a lot of opportunities,'' the recruiter, Nikki Koontz, said in a cheery voice. Skeptical looks were obvious on many faces in the room.
''Won't you just say we're overqualified?'' one woman wondered.
''Is there really the ability to move up the ranks?'' another asked.
Some softened when Ms. Koontz said that she, too, had been laid off not too long ago, and that her job at Lowe's involved a pay cut.
These are practical matters. Nobody directly asked how much the jobs would pay. (Answer: roughly $12 an hour, with benefits.) For many in the group, that would mean less money than they get from unemployment.
Roughly half the group still receives unemployment checks, and many have had multiple extensions to take them to the maximum of 99 weeks. Others were forced off the unemployment rolls this spring, when California did not meet the complex requirements for the extended benefits. Far more will lose their benefits within the next few months.
In California, nearly 930,000 people have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks, roughly 45 percent of the total who are unemployed, according to state figures. An analysis by Beacon Economics, a consulting group in Los Angeles, found that the unemployed in the Inland Empire go for 55 weeks on average without a job, about 14 weeks longer than the average in the rest of the state.
Trish Polson, the director of Experience Unlimited in Corona, estimates that a third of the participants would ''take anything they could.'' The rest may have stopped holding out hope for the ''perfect job,'' but they remain reluctant to take something that pays, say, half the salary they once made or seems far below their qualifications.
''Your whole life your job defines who you are,'' said Mr. Thomas, 48, who was laid off from his position as an advertising manager in February. ''All of the sudden that's gone, and you don't know what to take pride in anymore.''
In the months since he lost his job, Mr. Thomas has gotten up each day and dressed in the same kind of crisp shirts he wore to the office. He still has not told his 11-year-old daughter directly that he is out of work, instead making sure to offer her treats like ice cream cones so she does not worry that anything has changed.
Mr. Thomas is one of the most engaged and gregarious participants in the group, frequently leading workshops on interviews and interpersonal skills. For him and many others, this is their new job.
''A lot of people don't come here until they've spent some time at home licking their wounds,'' Ms. Polson said. ''By the time they get here, the hardest thing is for them to check their ego at the door. They think they can do it alone. Their pride hasn't been hurt enough yet.''
But most of the time, that changes rather quickly.
Mr. Reeves lost his job at a distribution company in 2008. He had been laid off once before, a few years earlier, and assumed this time would be just the same -- a few weeks of searching before finding a new job. But after two years, he had just one interview. His unemployment checks stopped coming long ago, and food stamps are a part of his life now.
Eventually, he moved into his mother's home here, where he wakes up most mornings by 6 and walks to the library every weekday. Tuesdays, though, are reserved for the group.
''The only thing I can do is get out of the house and keep looking,'' he said. ''I can't allow myself to get lazy, because giving up would just make me more depressed.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/unemployment-depths-seen-in-california-peer-group.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: People looking for a job meet each week at Experience Unlimited, a self-help program, in Corona, Calif., to share tips and support.
Yundra Thomas, who was laid off six months ago, often leads workshops at the program. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MONICA ALMEIDA/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A3)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1237 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 17, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
The Lowest Common Denominator and the 2012 Race for President
BYLINE: By JIM RUTENBERG
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; POLITICAL MEMO; Pg. 15
LENGTH: 879 words
For about, oh, two minutes, there was talk last weekend that the debate dominating the presidential race would take on a more elevated tone now that Mitt Romney had selected an avowed fiscal hawk, Representative Paul D. Ryan, as his running mate.The thinking was that the two presidential candidates, both with Harvard degrees, would finally use their intellectual prowess to discuss the nation's challenges seriously.
Then Tuesday (and Wednesday and Thursday) happened.
President Obama made a joking allusion to Mr. Romney's putting Seamus, the family dog, on the roof of his car; Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of demeaning his office with a campaign of ''division and anger and hate,'' born of Chicago no less. And it was all sliding back down the banister.
However genuine the latest heated disagreements may be, they do not happen by mistake in presidential politics.
There is strategy in the broadsides: Mr. Obama, faced with continuing high unemployment, is seeking to paint Mr. Romney as unqualified to replace him. Mr. Romney, faced with an opponent whose ''likability'' may be a potent inoculation against voters' economic frustrations, is seeking to strip that away.
Strategists on both sides are pondering which campaign is best served by the vitriol. Mr. Obama would seem to have the most to lose, given that his 2008 campaign successfully created a perception that he was a different kind of candidate, one of hope and change. ''Clearly, the Barack Obama who existed four years ago -- who thought we should rise to a higher level -- has disappeared,'' said Stuart Stevens, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney.
Mr. Stevens blamed Mr. Obama's team for pushing the debate to its current level when it failed to disavow an advertisement introduced last week by the ''super PAC'' Priorities USA Action. It features a steelworker who essentially attributes his wife's death by cancer to the decision by Mr. Romney's investment firm, Bain Capital, to close his plant, ending his health insurance.
The implication was false: the man had lost his job years before she became sick. Mr. Stevens said Mr. Obama had a duty to criticize the ad publicly. ''You've never in history had a president's organization,'' he said, ''supporting an ad accusing another candidate of being responsible for someone's death.''
The Obama campaign sees it differently.
''Does the word 'chutzpah' mean anything to you?'' said David Axelrod, the president's senior adviser. ''Mitt Romney and his allies have repeatedly questioned the president's Americanism. He stood by silently while a supporter accused the president of treason.''
As Mr. Romney and his supporters have used every possible opportunity this week to portray Mr. Obama and the Democrats as playing in the political gutter, they have been confronted with their own deeds and actions. After all, Mr. Romney declared ''this ain't beanbag'' after Newt Gingrich complained last winter about harsh attack ads from a super PAC supporting Mr. Romney -- including one that falsely said that Mr. Gingrich had voted to finance a program supporting China's one-child policy.
Former Gov. John H. Sununu of New Hampshire, a leading surrogate for Mr. Romney, appeared on the Fox News Channel show ''Hannity's America'' on Wednesday to say that the Obama campaign was ''getting dirty.'' But he also recently suggested that Mr. Obama ''learn how to be an American.''
He apologized for that, but on Tuesday, he questioned whether Mr. Obama had developed a Southern ''drawl'' in ''southern Indonesia,'' or ''is it just as phony as his jaunt when he runs up and down Marine One.''
Mr. Sununu's more liberal counterpart, Juan Williams, hit back at Mr. Sununu by noting that the Romney campaign had run an ad falsely charging that Mr. Obama planned to do away with work requirements for welfare recipients. That spot earned a ''pants on fire'' designation from the nonpartisan Web site Politifact, a service of The Tampa Bay Times.
As that commercial made its way onto television stations in swing states, it ran against an Obama campaign ad, which earned its own ''pants on fire'' badge. It falsely accused Mr. Romney of backing ''a bill that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.'' Mr. Romney has said that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest and when it would save the mother's life.
All the while, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada continued to push his case about Mr. Romney's refusal to release more than two years of tax returns, claiming that the Republican candidate had not paid taxes for a decade. His secret source, he said, was connected to Bain. When Mr. Romney said Thursday that he had never paid an effective federal tax rate of less than 13 percent, he added, ''I'm sure waiting for Harry to put up who it was that told him what he says they told him.''
In fact, leading up to the Ryan announcement, the presidential campaign of 2012 was being fought almost entirely on specious grounds. Asked whether he believed the two campaigns were addressing the substantive issues of the day just a few hours before the news about Mr. Ryan broke, Erskine B. Bowles, a former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, and an architect of the bipartisan budget plan known as Simpson-Bowles, wrote in an e-mail, ''Are you kidding?''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/politics/obama-romney-and-a-campaign-of-attack-ads-political-memo.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: The introduction of Representative Paul D. Ryan, left, has not elevated the tone of the presidential campaign. President Obama, above in Oskaloosa, Iowa, has revived the story of Mitt Romney's dog on the family car roof. And a Romney surrogate suggested that the president ''learn how to be an American.'' (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MICHAEL F. MCELROY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
DAMON WINTER/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1238 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 17, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
An Advertising Break: Pausing to Commemorate 9/11
BYLINE: By JEREMY W. PETERS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; THE CAUCUS; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 181 words
It is quite likely the only reprieve Americans will get from what is expected to be an especially heavy and sustained barrage of political advertising this fall. But on Sept. 11, President Obama and Mitt Romney have agreed to suspend their campaign commercials.Their decision follows similar steps taken in 2004 and 2008, when both presidential nominees ceased campaign activities for the day in honor of the lives lost in the 2001 terror attacks.
A group called MyGoodDeed, which pushed to establish Sept. 11 as a national day of remembrance, had called for a pause in campaigning.
Navigating Sept. 11, which falls at the beginning of the presidential campaign's homestretch, has been a tricky maneuver for candidates. In 2008 Mr. Obama and his rival, Senator John McCain, appeared together at the World Trade Center site.
Four years earlier, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry honored the day separately, Mr. Kerry at a memorial in Boston and Mr. Bush in a live radio address from the White House.
This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.
URL: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/obama-and-romney-to-suspend-ads-on-911/
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1239 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 17, 2012 Friday
In New Ads, Republicans Attack Over Medicare
BYLINE: JENNIFER STEINHAUER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 360 words
HIGHLIGHT: As the National Republican Congressional Committee starts its first wave of advertisements, get ready for the debate over the health care law to be reignited.
Get ready for the debate over the 2010 health care law - its Medicare component especially - to be reignited on the airwaves.
The National Republican Congressional Committee started its first wave of advertisements in support of their candidates Friday, and one, aimed at Representative Mark Critz, Democrat of Pennsylvania, hits him for not voting to repeal the health care law along with House Republicans. Mr. Critz was not in Congress when the law was passed in 2010 but has said that he would have voted against it. He won his seat later that year in a special election after the death of Representative John Murtha, a Democrat.
"Critz joined Nancy Pelosi and the liberals in the government takeover of health care," the ad announcer says, in the ominous voice that Americans have come to expect their televisions to emit this time of year. The ad also laments that the bill cuts $700 billion from Medicare, roughly the same amount that House Republicans seek to cut in their budget.
The Republican campaign group has reserved $1.8 million for Mr. Critz's race in the state's 12th District, and the ad against him will run for a week at the cost of $111,000. Three other advertisements also begin Friday, in districts where Republicans are seeking to play offense against Democratic incumbents.
In Georgia, the group uses President Obama's support of Representative John Barrow to suggest that Mr. Barrow has hurt his home state and also slyly refers to the health care bill, which Mr. Barrow voted against.
In Kentucky's race for the Sixth District, the Republican campaign group unleashed an ad against Representative Bed Chandler, criticizing him for voting to increase the debt limit, while in North Carolina, the group attacks Representative Mike McIntyre over the stimulus bill and suggests that his votes led to jobs being shipped overseas, a sensitive issue in his state.
Senate Democrats' Strategy for Ryan Includes the Deficit
On Medicare, Obama Plays Offense
For Romney, a New Running Mate May Mean a New, Less Elliptical, Workout, Too
'Super PAC' Backs Santa Impersonator for Michigan House Seat
For a Virginia Republican, a Comeback and a Tough Fight Ahead
LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1240 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 17, 2012 Friday
For Selfish Seniors Only
BYLINE: DAVID FIRESTONE
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 449 words
HIGHLIGHT: A new ad says the president raided Medicare to fund his 'massive new government program.'
Among the many falsehoods in the Romney campaign's new Medicare ad is this remarkable line pitched to the elderly: "The money you paid in for guaranteed health care is going into a massive new government program that's not for you."
Those three words "not for you," encapsulate the Republican Party's approach to that "massive" program, the Affordable Care Act, as a wedge issue. It's not enough to say that President Obama took $716 billion out of Medicare, because Paul Ryan's budget did the same thing. The point is that those billions are being spent on the wrong people, those unnamed others who inevitably lurk just outside of Republican ads.
The implication is that Obamacare is for the poor, the uninsured, blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, anyone but the upstanding older Americans that the Romney-Ryan ticket is suddenly very afraid of losing. "It's not for you."
As it happens, the ad is incorrect. For instance, the president's health care bill eliminated the notorious Medicare "doughnut hole," which forced beneficiaries to use their own money for prescription drugs after they reached a limit. That hole, created by President George W. Bush and Congress, had a serious health effect on millions of older Americans. Many studies showed that it forced people to stop taking their medications or to skip doses.
Getting rid of the gap is one of the best things about health care reform, and it doesn't just affect those "other people." That's why you never hear Mitt Romney or Mr. Ryan talking about it when they promise on the stump to repeal Obamacare on their first day in office.
The real purpose of the health care reform is to reduce the number of Americans without insurance. This change will improve public health and decrease the financial burdens on hospitals. Keeping people healthier as they age into Medicare will help keep the program solvent for all.
The ad seems to assume that older Americans don't care about any of that, that they are selfishly focused only on their own immediate benefits and don't care about upcoming generations, including their own children and grandchildren. It assumes they feel about 30 million uninsured people the way Senator Mitch McConnell does: "That is not the issue."
That's not terribly surprising from a campaign that wants to end all federal responsibility for Medicaid and food stamps - entirely for "other people" - and is running another deceitful ad that accuses the president of freeing welfare recipients from work requirements. The message seems to be that if you care about these things, the Romney campaign is not for you.
Evil Bain and the Evil Empire
Health Care Confusion
Return of the Swift Boat
Medicare Confusion
Forcing Flip-Flops
LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1241 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 17, 2012 Friday
Obama Ad Attacks the Romney Campaign on Women's Issues
BYLINE: HELENE COOPER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 231 words
HIGHLIGHT: Being broadcast in Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Ohio and Nevada, the ad tries to draw a contrast between President Obama and the Republican ticket on women's health.
9:58 p.m. | Updated
The Obama campaign, trying to shore up the president's support among female voters in crucial swing states, is hitting Mitt Romney and Representative Paul D. Ryan in a new ad that targets their positions on a number of issues important to voters who support abortion rights.
Being broadcast in Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Ohio and Nevada, the ad, called "The Same," tries to draw a contrast between Mr. Obama and the Republican ticket on social issues -- women's health in particular -- which Democrats believe will be critical in November.
The ad accuses Mr. Romney of promising to get rid of Planned Parenthood, a family-planning group, and of backing proposals that would take away a woman's right to choose. It touts Mr. Obama for fighting Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.
"No misleading ad can change the fact that President Obama's economic policies have devastated women and their families," said Amanda Henneberg, a spokeswoman for the Romney campaign. "Under President Obama, hundreds of thousands of women have lost their jobs, poverty among women is the highest in nearly two decades and half of recent graduates can't find a good job. Women and their families have struggled in the Obama economy, and Mitt Romney has a plan for a stronger middle class that will jumpstart the economy, bring back jobs and help women across the country."
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1242 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 17, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
In Keystone State, fewer campaign ads than in 2008
BYLINE: Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4A
LENGTH: 579 words
Pennsylvania voters: Do not adjust your television sets. You live in a delegate-rich, politically purple state with a history of hard-fought presidential campaigns just like the one going on right now. So how come your TV isn't overrun with political ads?
Since May, the presidential candidates have spent little or no money advertising in Pennsylvania, one of the most-contested states of the last presidential election.
In 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain spent $41 million advertising in Pennsylvania during the general election campaign, more than anywhere but Florida. (Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton had already spent $16million in their primary battle in the state that April.)
This year, from May to the end of July, President Obama spent less than $5 million on ads in Pennsylvania, according to a National Journal analysis, but spent $26 million in Ohio. Republican Mitt Romney has spent $13 million in Ohio, but in Pennsylvania, he hasn't run any ads at all.
If ad wars aren't raging, is Pennsylvania still a battleground? And how could a state be in play when it hasn't voted Republican since 1988? Obama won Pennsylvania by 10 percentage points in 2008; in a Franklin & Marshall College poll released Thursday, he leads Romney by 5 points.
Pennsylvania is "a second-tier target" for the presidential campaigns, says Lara Brown, a political scientist at Villanova University outside Philadelphia. "Pennsylvania kind of suffers from that sense of 'The Republicans haven't won this in so long, why are they competing?'"
They're competing because beyond Obama's big win in 2008, Democratic presidential victories in the state were slim, says pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster. Sen. John Kerry won by just 2.5 points in 2004 and Al Gore by 4.2 points in 2000.
"Hope springs eternal," Madonna says.
Romney has visited Pennsylvania four times since primary season, Obama has visited the state twice, and first lady Michelle Obama has made three trips. Independent expenditure groups running ads in the state include conservative Americans for Prosperity, the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future and pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action.
In 2010, the state elected a Republican governor, Tom Corbett, who won with the biggest vote total of any Republican in the state's history. Republicans also won a Senate seat and control of the Legislature.
"That was just off the first two years of President Obama's term," says Billy Pitman, head of the state Republican Victory team. "Two years later, we're heading down the same road, and people are ready to change leadership in the White House."
Democrats have a big advantage in voter registration, but this includes many white working-class Democrats who Jesse Daniel, chairman of the Indiana County GOP, describes as "pro-gun, pro-life; they are for traditional marriage; they are leery of large government."
The state also has a high proportion of senior citizens -- important in an election that could focus on the future of Medicare.
Pennsylvania's emergence as a keystone in the presidential race may have to wait until after the political conventions, when Romney is able to start spending money raised for the general election. Then Obama may have to respond in kind.
State Democratic Chairman Jim Burn warns supporters of the president "not to be lulled into any false sense of security by the current level of Republican activity."
"That could change on a dime," Burn says.
LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1243 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 17, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
Romney, GOP seek greater share of Hispanics at polls;
Dems' grip on voting bloc baffles volunteers
BYLINE: Alan Gomez, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 4A
LENGTH: 868 words
In the 25 years Maricruz MaGowan has been living in the U.S., the Maryland economist has never been able to understand why Democrats maintain such a tight grip on the nation's Hispanic vote.
"I find it very difficult to understand why it is that we don't have more Hispanics voting for Republicans," said MaGowan, 49, a native of Bolivia who is volunteering for the campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney. "Our values are so similar to the values of traditional families in Latin America."
Marta Saltus, whose parents fled Argentina in the 1950s, is also volunteering for Romney's campaign and is equally confused.
"We are all conservative -- socially conservative, fiscally conservative. We believe in individual responsibility; we work hard; we don't want food stamps," said Saltus, 46.
But yet, the disconnect between Republicans and Hispanic voters is one of the toughest challenges facing Romney. President Obama won the 2008 election partly because he won 67% of the Hispanic vote, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Obama is doing even better among Hispanics this time around in some polls, including a 70%-22% lead over Romney in a Latino Decisions poll released last month.
The Hispanic voting bloc is so crucial that the Republican National Committee dispatched Hispanic outreach coordinators to six swing states with the goal of winning over Hispanic voters.
That outreach was on display recently in an office suite in Arlington, Va., where Romney volunteers gathered for a day of phone calls in the heavily Democratic area. In one room, after a speech by Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, dozens of volunteers started cold-calling voters in the area. In another room in the back of the suite, other volunteers -- all bilingual -- focused on calling Hispanic voters.
Focusing their conversations squarely on the nation's still-struggling economy and a national unemployment rate of 8.3%, the volunteers were encouraged by the reception they were getting.
"We've had 42 months of unemployment over 8%. And for Hispanics, it's 2 points above that," said Luis Luna, 56, a Cuban-American who himself is unemployed, despite graduating from the University of Maryland and holding a law degree from Georgetown University. "Invariably, people will say, 'It's not working now; I think the Republicans will do a better job.'"
Polls indicate that something is still holding Hispanics back from swinging over to Romney en masse. Matt Barreto, co-founder of Latino Decisions, a polling firm that studies Hispanic voters, said there are several reasons.
He said Latinos and Republicans do generally agree on many social issues, but Hispanics don't place as much emphasis on them when casting their vote. Barreto said Romney is also missing the mark when talking about economic issues, with Romney pushing to cut taxes and lessen the role of government while Hispanics generally support an active government helping to create jobs.
The most obvious miscue, Barreto said, came in Romney's first Spanish-language ad this year, which declares that the former Massachusetts governor would begin dismantling Obama's health care plan on his first day in office. According to a January poll, 57% of Hispanics support the health care law.
"It's extremely good news and a positive development for the Romney campaign to be investing in Hispanic outreach, but oftentimes, they don't know what they're doing," Barreto said.
The issue of illegal immigration also becomes complicated for Romney.
GOP officials are quick to point out that immigration is not the main priority for Hispanics when casting their vote. Polls back that up: The economy is their No. 1 priority, as it is for the country as a whole. And Romney volunteers say voters want to talk more about the economy than anything else.
"They don't really bring it up, and neither do I," Saltus said.
Barreto calls immigration a "gateway issue" for Hispanic voters -- if a candidate is wrong on the issue, it's hard to listen to anything else.
"It makes it hard for the candidates to even get in the door," he said.
Romney took a hard stance on illegal immigration during the GOP primary. He called for more funding to secure the border with Mexico, pushed identity-verification laws to keep illegal immigrants out of American jobs and endorsed the idea of "self-deportation," where laws make life so hard for illegal immigrants that they choose to return to their home countries.
The issue becomes more prominent for voters who know, or are related to, an illegal immigrant. About a quarter of Hispanic voters know someone, or are related to, someone facing deportation, and more than half know an illegal immigrant, according to a Latino Decisions poll conducted last year.
Despite those numbers, Romney volunteers said the issue rarely comes up when talking with voters.
Matthew Mirliani, a 19-year-old volunteer who will start studying at Dartmouth College this fall, has been knocking on doors, making phone calls and writing op-eds on behalf of Republican candidates for months. When asked how voters respond to Romney's immigration record, the Mount Vernon teen spoke quickly.
"No one's talking about that," Mirliani said. "That's not the topic."
LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1244 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 17, 2012 Friday 9:47 PM EST
Democrats keep up tax attacks against Romney;
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee says he hasn't paid less than 13 percent tax rate during the last decade. That hasn't stopped opponents from pouncing.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 599 words
Democrats are not satisfied with Mitt Romney's tax information, Elizabeth Warren releases a new ad, and Ed Case wants to know why he lost in Hawaii.
Make sure to sign up to receive "Afternoon Fix" every day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
The state of state legislatures - in 1 map
Where John McCain fits in today's GOP
As keynote looms, Chris Christie's 'Jersey comeback' suffers setback
Senate surprises stoke majority ambitions on both sides
The Fix's Google Plus Hangout on Paul Ryan's first week on the campaign trail
Is Joe Biden a liability for Obama?
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* Democrats continue to hammer Mitt Romney over his taxes. The pro-President Obama super PAC Priorities USA has released a new ad saying Romney would pay only 1 percent in taxes under one of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plans. Meanwhile, Obama's campaign isn't satisfied with Romney saying he has paid at least a 13 percent income tax rate during the last ten years, and it has has a proposal: If Romney releases five years worth of returns, it will not criticize him for not releasing more. The Romney campaign is not interested in the proposal.
* On the stump Friday, Ryan said Virginia will decide the winner of the presidential election. "This is a state that has it all and it is a state that will determine it all - and we have a clear choice," he said at a stop in Henrico County.
* The National Republican Congressional Committee is playing offense and defense in a new $9.6 million fall ad reservation across 12 districts. The reservation covers seven GOP-held seats and five Democrat-controlled districts. Five of the seven Republicans the the NRCC is defending are freshman. The only one who is not a freshman is Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who is running against former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack (D). The NRCC is also reserving time in Arizona's open 1st District.
* Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has released a new TV ad tying Republican nominee Josh Mandel to the payday lending industry. Mandel flew to the Bahamas in March to give a speech to industry leaders and raise money. Brown's campaign says the ad buy is six figures.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Former Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine has purchased another $1 million worth of fall airtime, including $250,000 worth of time on Spanish-language media. Kaine's total fall airtime purchase has now reached $4.5 million.
* A new Democratic poll of the Nevada Senate race shows Rep. Shelley Berkley (D) running neck-and-neck against Sen. Dean Heller (R). Berkley holds a 44 percent to 42 percent lead, which lies inside the margin of error. The poll was conducted for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from Aug. 13-15 by Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group.
* Redistricting means Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) is facing a tough reelection bid, but it's not preventing him from focusing on an issue that is very important to him:emergency preparedness.
* Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign has released a new TV ad that pitches her as someone who has stood up to the financial industry.
* Former congressman Ed Case lost the Hawaii Democratic Senate primary on Saturday, and now he wants to know why. Case is directing supporters and non-supporters to go to his website to fill out an anonymous online survey that asks why voters chose the candidate they did.
THE FIX MIX:
One jazzy door.
With Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1245 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 17, 2012 Friday 8:34 PM EST
Obama camp on Romney's taxes: Let's make a deal;
Obama's campaign manager makes Romney an offer.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 345 words
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina has an offer for Mitt Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades: Release five years of tax returns and the Obama campaign will stop criticizing or questioning the former Massachusetts governor for not releasing more.
There is no offer to refrain from criticizing the contents of those returns.
Likelihood that Romney will take this deal: Very low.
The full letter is below.
August 17, 2012
Matt Rhoades 585 Commercial Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Dear Matt:
I am writing to ask again that the Governor release multiple years of tax returns, but also to make an offer that should address his concerns about the additional disclosures. Governor Romney apparently fears that the more he offers, the more our campaign will demand that he provide. So I am prepared to provide assurances on just that point: if the Governor will release five years of returns, I commit in turn that we will not criticize him for not releasing more-neither in ads nor in other public communications or commentary for the rest of the campaign.
This request for the release of five years, covering the complete returns for 2007-2012, is surely not unreasonable. Other Presidential candidates have released more, including the Governor's father who provided 12 years of returns. In the Governor's case, a five year release would appropriately span all the years that he has been a candidate for President. It would also help answer outstanding questions raised by the one return he has released to date, such as the range in the effective rates paid, the foreign accounts maintained, the foreign investments made, and the types of tax shelters used.
To provide these five years, the Governor would have to release only three more sets of returns in addition to the 2010 return he has released and the 2011 return he has pledged to provide. And, I repeat, the Governor and his campaign can expect in return that we will refrain from questioning whether he has released enough or pressing for more.
I look forward to your reply.
Jim Messina Obama for America Campaign Manager
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1246 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 17, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Romney's present, Ryan's future
BYLINE: Charles Krauthammer
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A21
LENGTH: 830 words
Vice-presidential picks are always judged by their effect on the coming election. They rarely have any.
They haven't had a decisive influence since Lyndon Johnson carried Texas for John Kennedy in 1960. (That and Illinois put Kennedy over the top.) This time, however, the effect could be significant. The Democrats' Mediscare barrage is already in full swing. Paul Ryan, it seems, is determined to dispossess Grandmother, then toss her over a cliff. If the charge is not successfully countered, good-bye Florida. Republicans have a twofold answer. First, hammer home that their Medicare plan affects no one over 55, let alone 65. Second, go on offense. Point out that President Obama cuts Medicare by $700 billion to finance Obamacare.
It's a sweet judo throw: Want to bring up Medicare, supposedly our weakness? Fine. But now you've got to debate Obamacare, your weakness - and explain why you are robbing Granny's health care to pay for your pet project.
If Mitt Romney and Ryan can successfully counterattack Mediscare, the Ryan effect becomes a major plus. Because:
(a) Ryan nationalizes the election and makes it ideological, reprising the 2010 dynamic that delivered a "shellacking" to the Democrats.
(b) If the conversation is about big issues, Obama cannot hide from his dismal economic record and complete failure of vision. In Obama's own on-camera commercial - "the choice . . . couldn't be bigger" - what's his big idea? A 4.6-point increase in the marginal tax rate of 2 percent of the population.
That's it? That's his program? For a country with stagnant growth, ruinous debt and structural problems crying out for major entitlement and tax reform? Obama's "plan" would cut the deficit from $1.20 trillion to $1.12 trillion. It's a joke. (c) Image. Ryan, fresh and 42, brings youth, energy and vitality - the very qualities Obama projected in 2008 and has by now depleted. "Hope and change" has become "the other guy killed a steelworker's wife." From transcendence to the political gutter in under four years. A new Olympic record.
While Ryan's effect on 2012 is as yet undetermined - it depends on the success or failure of Mediscare - there is less doubt about the meaning of Ryan's selection for beyond 2012. He could well become the face of Republicanism for a generation.
There's a history here. By choosing George H.W. Bush in 1980, Ronald Reagan gave birth to a father-son dynasty that dominated the presidential scene for three decades. The Bush name was on six of seven consecutive national tickets.
When Dwight Eisenhower picked Richard Nixon in 1952, he turned a relatively obscure senator into a dominant national figure for a quarter-century, appearing on the presidential ticket in five of six consecutive elections.
Even losing VP candidates can ascend to party leader and presumptive presidential nominee. Ed Muskie so emerged in 1968, until he melted down in New Hampshire in 1972. Walter Mondale so emerged in 1980 and won the presidential nomination four years later. (The general election was another story.)Winning is even better. Forty percent of 20th-century presidents were former VPs: Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Bush (41).
Before Aug. 11, Ryan already was the party's intellectual leader and de facto parliamentary leader - youngest-ever House Budget Committee chairman whose fiscal blueprint has driven congressional debate for two years. Now, however, he is second only to Romney as the party's undisputed political leader.
And while Romney is the present, Ryan is the future. Romney's fate will be determined on Nov. 6. Ryan's presence, assuming he acquits himself well in the campaign, will extend for decades.
Ryan's importance is enhanced by his identity as a movement conservative. Reagan was the first movement leader in modern times to achieve the presidency. Like him, Ryan represents a new kind of conservatism for his time.
Reagan rejected the moderate accommodationism represented by Gerald Ford, the sitting president Reagan nearly overthrew in 1976. Ryan represents a new constitutional conservatism of limited government and individual opportunity that carried Republicans to victory in 2010, not just as a rejection of Obama's big-government hyper-liberalism but also as a significant departure from the philosophically undisciplined, idiosyncratically free-spending "compassionate conservatism" of Obama's Republican predecessor.
Ryan's role is to make the case for a serious approach to structural problems - a hardheaded, sober-hearted conservatism that puts to shame a reactionary liberalism that, with Greece in our future, offers handouts, bromides and a 4.6 percent increase in tax rates.
If Ryan does it well, win or lose in 2012, he becomes a dominant national force. Mild and moderate Mitt Romney will have shaped the conservative future for years to come.
The cunning of history. Or if you prefer, its sheer capriciousness.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1247 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 17, 2012 Friday 4:29 PM EST
Obama super PAC: You call that 'small-minded'?;
Short summary of story
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 157 words
Well, Mitt Romney didn't take President Obama's deal (essentially, release more tax returns and we'll stop talking about them). So here's a new Priorities USA Action ad using Romney's interview Thursday to hammer his tax rate.
The ad notes that under Paul Ryan's "Roadmap" (though not under the budget passed by the House GOP) Romney would pay almost no taxes.
"Small-minded" is airing in Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
The script:
ROMNEY: "The fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small minded...I've paid at least 13 percent."
NARRATOR: But under one of Paul Ryan's budget plans, Romney would pay only 1 percent. That's right. Mitt Romney's worth $200 million dollars, but under Paul Ryan's budget, he'd pay only 1 percent in taxes, while middle class families would pay $1000 more. Romney and Ryan. If they win, the middle class losses.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1248 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 17, 2012 Friday 2:54 PM EST
No, you're cutting Medicare;
Obama's first Medicare ad.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 184 words
It begins: Mitt Romney got out in front of the debate on who will destroy senior citizens lives on Thursday, with this ad.
Now it's President Obama's turn at defending his Medicare plan and attacking Rep. Paul Ryan's:
The script:
NARRATOR: "Now Mitt Romney is attacking the President on Medicare?"
"The non-partisan AARP says Obamacare 'cracks down on Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse' and 'strengthens guaranteed benefits'."
"And the Ryan plan?"
"AARP says it would undermine ... Medicare and could lead to higher costs for seniors...."
"And experts say his voucher plan could raise future retirees' costs more than six thousand dollars."
"Get the facts."
And the Romney response, from spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg: "President Obama's new ad 'Facts' gets the facts wrong. The facts concerning the President's record on Medicare are clear: 1) Obama cut the program by $716 billion, 2) millions will be forced to lose their Medicare Advantage coverage and 3) the program will go bankrupt in 2024. Mitt Romney has a plan for Medicare that protects it for today's seniors and strengthens it for future generations."
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1249 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 17, 2012 Friday 11:04 AM EST
No, you're cutting Medicare;
Obama's first Medicare ad
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 108 words
It begins: President Obama is out with his first ad defending his Medicare plan and attacking Paul Ryan's:
The script:
NARRATOR: "Now Mitt Romney is attacking the President on Medicare?"
"The non-partisan AARP says Obamacare 'cracks down on Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse.' and 'strengthens guaranteed benefits'."
"And the Ryan plan?"
"AARP says it would undermine ... Medicare and could lead to higher costs for seniors...."
"And experts say his voucher plan could raise future retirees' costs more than six thousand dollars."
"Get the facts."
Mitt Romney got out in front of the debate on who will destroy senior citizens lives on Thursday, with this ad.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1250 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 17, 2012 Friday 1:56 AM EST
Mitt Romney is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore;
Mitt is mad. But is that a good thing?
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
LENGTH: 697 words
On Tuesday night, Mitt Romney went off.
At acampaign event in Ohio, Romney said that "this is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like," adding: "[Obama's] campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51 percent of the pieces. If an American president wins that way, we all lose."
The reaction by Romney was all the more notable because he is almost always in total control on the campaign trail - projecting a sunny demeanor amid the hurly-burly of the race.
Romney aides insisted in the wake of his blow-up that it had not been pre-planned or strategized about in any way. It was, they argued, Romney unplugged.
On one level, that explanation makes sense. Remember that Romney is the ultimate rule-follower, someone whose entire life has been defined by his ability to rapidly learn the rules that govern any situation, internalize them and then succeed within them. (It's why Romney was good in business and successful in debates - both bound by lots and lots of rules of the road - and far less good on the stump, a more free-form sort of exercise.)
When Romney feels like the rules have been broken, he reacts emotionally - or as emotionally as he ever gets. Remember Romney's testy exchange with a questioner in an August 2011 town hall? Or his appeals to CNN's Anderson Cooper during a back and forth with Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a GOP presidential debate?
It's clear from his response on Tuesday night that Romney feels as though the rules of engagement have been repeatedly broken by Obama - from the president refusing to condemn aDemocratic super PAC ad that tries to link Romney to the death of a woman to Vice President Joe Biden's assertion earlier in the day that a Romney presidency would "put ya'll back in chains".
Regardless of whether or not Romney's flash of anger was purposeful - our guess is it wasn't - it does land in the middle of a presidential campaign and, therefore, is likely to have some effect on the race.
President Obama's campaign is working hard to cast it as evidence of a personality flaw in the Republican nominee; an Obama spokesman used the word "unhinged" to describe Romney's reaction - a decidedly purposeful choice of words.
What Republicans have to hope is that Romney's newfound aggression - his detractors would call it anger - on the campaign trail can a) convince people that he is not simply a political robot carrying out the mission as best he understands it and b) chip away at President Obama's massive likability gap.
As we have written before, people - even many who dislike his policies - like President Obama. On virtually every character trait, Obama has a wide lead over Romney. And, while the Romney team has long dismissed the gap as less important than the fact that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy, they also know that presidential elections are not won or lost on issues alone.
Personality matters. The presidential vote is as much about the person voters feel most comfortable with as it is about the person who lines up with them on every single issue. That goes double for independent and unaffiliated voters.
By going at Obama's approach to politics, Romney is - whether intentionally or not - seeking to undermine the "hope and change" messaging on which the President's likability edge is built. It's unlikely that Romney can ever make himself more likable than Obama but if he can erode some of the good will directed at Obama the person, he may be able to narrow the gap.
Using anger/aggression in politics is a dangerous game. Too much of either can be a major turnoff for voters who tend to like measured equanimity in their pols. But, for Romney, who has labored under the caricature of an emotionless automaton for seemingly forever, showing some emotion may wind up being a good thing.
The question going forward is whether Tuesday night represents a turning point in how Romney presents himself to voters or simply a blip on the radar, quickly forgotten.
Read more from PostPolitics
The Take: An ugly campaign turns even uglier
Judge backs Pennsylvania voter ID law
Ann Romney: Releasing more tax returns would mean more attacks
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1251 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 17, 2012 Friday
Regional Edition
Romney's present, Ryan's future
BYLINE: Charles Krauthammer
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A21
LENGTH: 824 words
Vice-presidential picks are always judged by their effect on the coming election. They rarely have any.
They haven't had a decisive influence since Lyndon Johnson carried Texas for John Kennedy in 1960. (That and Illinois put Kennedy over the top.) This time, however, the effect could be significant. The Democrats' Mediscare barrage is already in full swing. Paul Ryan, it seems, is determined to dispossess Grandmother, then toss her over a cliff. If the charge is not successfully countered, good-bye Florida.
Republicans have a twofold answer. First, hammer home that their Medicare plan affects no one over 55, let alone 65. Second, go on offense. Point out that President Obama cuts Medicare by $700 billion to finance Obamacare.
It's a sweet judo throw: Want to bring up Medicare, supposedly our weakness? Fine. But now you've got to debate Obamacare, your weakness - and explain why you are robbing Granny's health care to pay for your pet project.
If Mitt Romney and Ryan can successfully counterattack Mediscare, the Ryan effect becomes a major plus. Because:
(a) Ryan nationalizes the election and makes it ideological, reprising the 2010 dynamic that delivered a "shellacking" to the Democrats.
(b) If the conversation is about big issues, Obama cannot hide from his dismal economic record and complete failure of vision. In Obama's own on-camera commercial - "the choice . . . couldn't be bigger" - what's his big idea? A 4.6-point increase in the marginal tax rate of 2 percent of the population.
That's it? That's his program? For a country with stagnant growth, ruinous debt and structural problems crying out for major entitlement and tax reform? Obama's "plan" would cut the deficit from $1.20 trillion to $1.12 trillion. It's a joke.
(c) Image. Ryan, fresh and 42, brings youth, energy and vitality - the very qualities Obama projected in 2008 and has by now depleted. "Hope and change" has become "the other guy killed a steelworker's wife." From transcendence to the political gutter in under four years. A new Olympic record.
While Ryan's effect on 2012 is as yet undetermined - it depends on the success or failure of Mediscare - there is less doubt about the meaning of Ryan's selection for beyond 2012. He could well become the face of Republicanism for a generation.
There's a history here. By choosing George H.W. Bush in 1980, Ronald Reagan gave birth to a father-son dynasty that dominated the presidential scene for three decades. The Bush name was on six of seven consecutive national tickets.
When Dwight Eisenhower picked Richard Nixon in 1952, he turned a relatively obscure senator into a dominant national figure for a quarter-century, appearing on the presidential ticket in five of six consecutive elections.
Even losing VP candidates can ascend to party leader and presumptive presidential nominee. Ed Muskie so emerged in 1968, until he melted down in New Hampshire in 1972. Walter Mondale so emerged in 1980 and won the presidential nomination four years later. (The general election was another story.)
Winning is even better. Forty percent of 20th-century presidents were former VPs: Theodore Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Bush (41).
Before Aug. 11, Ryan already was the party's intellectual leader and de facto parliamentary leader - youngest-ever House Budget Committee chairman whose fiscal blueprint has driven congressional debate for two years. Now, however, he is second only to Romney as the party's undisputed political leader.
And while Romney is the present, Ryan is the future. Romney's fate will be determined on Nov. 6. Ryan's presence, assuming he acquits himself well in the campaign, will extend for decades.
Ryan's importance is enhanced by his identity as a movement conservative. Reagan was the first movement leader in modern times to achieve the presidency. Like him, Ryan represents a new kind of conservatism for his time.
Reagan rejected the moderate accommodationism represented by Gerald Ford, the sitting president Reagan nearly overthrew in 1976. Ryan represents a new constitutional conservatism of limited government and individual opportunity that carried Republicans to victory in 2010, not just as a rejection of Obama's big-government hyper-liberalism but also as a significant departure from the philosophically undisciplined, idiosyncratically free-spending "compassionate conservatism" of Obama's Republican predecessor.
Ryan's role is to make the case for a serious approach to structural problems - a hardheaded, sober-hearted conservatism that puts to shame a reactionary liberalism that, with Greece in our future, offers handouts, bromides and a 4.6 percent increase in tax rates.
If Ryan does it well, win or lose in 2012, he becomes a dominant national force. Mild and moderate Mitt Romney will have shaped the conservative future for years to come.
The cunning of history. Or if you prefer, its sheer capriciousness.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1252 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 16, 2012 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
Health Care Leads Campaign Dialogue in Midwest
BYLINE: By HELENE COOPER; Trip Gabriel contributed reporting from Oxford, Ohio.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 12
LENGTH: 893 words
DUBUQUE, Iowa -- With Mitt Romney on the attack on Medicare, President Obama personally engaged in the fight on Wednesday as the popular public health program catapulted to the top of the presidential campaign agenda.On the last day of his three-day bus tour of Iowa, sensing an opening to paint a contrast with his opponents, Mr. Obama sharply attacked Mr. Romney and his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, for advocating budget cuts that he said would curtail Medicare benefits.
While ''I have strengthened Medicare,'' Mr. Obama declared before a crowd of 3,000 here, ''Mr. Romney and his running mate have a very different plan. They want to turn Medicare into a voucher program.'' Such a move, the president maintained, would ''force seniors to spend an extra $6,400 a year.''
The president offered a quick comparison of his proposals and the Republicans'. ''My plan has already extended Medicare for nearly a decade,'' he said. ''Their plan makes seniors pay more so we can get tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.''
That Mr. Obama would personally join the Medicare melee was a foregone conclusion once Mr. Romney picked Mr. Ryan as his running mate, since Democrats see Medicare as a topic that could help them in vote-rich Florida, one of the crucial swing states. Many Democrats believe they have the advantage on the issue, which has long been viewed as a political vulnerability for Republicans.
In recent days, Mr. Romney has been trying to change that political dynamic. The Republicans released a television commercial on Tuesday asserting that the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan was better for older Americans.
''Obama has cut $716 billion from Medicare,'' the ad says. ''Why? To pay for Obamacare. So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you.''
Mr. Ryan sounded similar themes, campaigning Wednesday in Oxford, Ohio, on the campus of his alma mater, Miami University.
''Look at your paycheck,'' Mr. Ryan told an enthusiastic crowd of more than 1,000, including much of the current membership of his former fraternity. ''Look at the line that shows your payroll taxes. They are supposed to go to two programs, Social Security and Medicare, period. Now because of President Obama they're also going to pay for Obamacare.''
''It's not right, he knows it, he can't defend it,'' Mr. Ryan said.
Mr. Obama was quick to make the case on Wednesday that the spending reductions would not reduce any benefits. ''This is something I've got to point out here, because they're just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks,'' Mr. Obama said derisively, before going into his own claim that the Republican proposal would leave Americans 65 and over with only the voucher option. Actually, the newest iteration of Mr. Ryan's plan would offer the choice of staying in the traditional program or getting a subsidy to buy private insurance.
Mr. Obama appeared to be trying to lower the temperature on the increasingly personal attacks that have been flying between the Romney and Obama camps. He dropped Seamus the dog from his remarks in Dubuque on Wednesday morning. (The day before, the president resuscitated the oft-told story of Mr. Romney's strapping the family dog to the roof of the car on a vacation to Canada.)
And similarly, the president did not wade into the war of words between Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the Romney camp, a fight that began Tuesday afternoon when Mr. Biden told a mostly black audience in Danville, Va., that Republicans would seek to ''unchain Wall Street'' and ''put y'all back in chains'' by loosening Wall Street regulations. Mr. Biden said later that he meant to use the term ''unshackled,'' but he did not apologize and derided the ensuing Romney outrage.
Mr. Romney responded with an angry denunciation Tuesday night, accusing the Obama campaign of being driven by ''division and attack and hatred,'' a critique that Obama campaign aides called ''unhinged.''
The president, for his part, sought to stay out of the fray on Wednesday. Mr. Obama, in an interview with ''Entertainment Tonight,'' said of Mr. Biden's remark, ''His phrasing is a distraction from what is at stake.'' But he did have his wife offer a strong defense of his own character.
Michelle Obama joined her husband onstage here at the raucous event at the Alliant Energy Amphitheater -- right by a brewery, as it turned out. The president has been on a beer kick this week in Iowa, talking about beer at practically every stop.
She talked about Mr. Obama's mother and his grandmother, who often saw men promoted ahead of her during her career as a bank officer. ''As president, all you have to guide you are your values and your visions and your life experiences,'' Mrs. Obama said, making no mention of Mr. Romney's background as the son of a business executive and governor. ''Who you are and what you stand for. And we all know who my husband stands for, don't we?''
The president, Mrs. Obama said, ''is the son of a single mother who struggled to put herself through school and pay the bills. He's the grandson of a woman who woke up before dawn every day to catch a bus to her job.''
She continued, as the applause thickened: ''So what I mean is, your president knows what it means to see your family struggle. This is not a hypothetical situation for him.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/politics/obama-and-ryan-talk-health-care-at-campaign-stops.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: President Obama and his wife, Michelle, spoke Wednesday about Medicare and health care at a campaign stop in Dubuque, Iowa. (PHOTOGRAPH BY DAMON WINTER/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1253 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 16, 2012 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
Middle-Age Blues
BYLINE: By GAIL COLLINS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 23
LENGTH: 757 words
Paul Ryan is everywhere! Nobody can talk about anything but the congressman from Wisconsin. We now know he is the intellectual, spiritual and moral center of the House of Representatives, who keeps his body fat below 8 percent and excels at a sport that involves sticking your hand inside a catfish, grabbing it by the tonsils and pulling it out of the water. Also, I believe he may have been the guy who ran the men's relay race in the Olympics on a broken fibula.Today, let's consider what the selection of Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate will mean to the American health care system. To start, there's good news for senior citizens: You can stop worrying! Neither Ryan nor Romney wants to change Medicare coverage for people over 55.
Also, the news media is going to quit calling you senior citizens. You are now Medicare Sensitive Voters.
Any other questions? Let's start with you over there in the corner -- the one jumping up and down and hysterically waving your arms.
I am 54! How come nobody cares about my health care?
As Romney said on ''60 Minutes,'' the Republican ticket is ''looking for young people down the road and saying, 'We're going to give you a bigger choice.' '' So the good news is that: A) you are getting a choice, and B) you are now officially a young person.
No, I'm not! I am totally falling apart! And now you're telling me that people just one year older than me will get guaranteed government coverage that everybody likes, while I am going to be getting a choice? What if I don't want a choice?
Freedom is always good.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
You are much too young to know that song. That's why Ryan doesn't want to let you have Medicare as we know it. To qualify for the current system, you'd have to be old enough to remember when Simon and Garfunkel were together.
But I'm glad you want to talk about Medicare. Now that Ryan is on the ticket, that's the topic of the hour. No more debates about Bain Capital. Really, unless someone discovers that Bain Capital secretly shelled the Golan Heights, that subject is off the table.
So, about Medicare. Why don't Romney and Ryan want to let me have it?
You really are obsessed with that, aren't you? The National Republican Congressional Committee has warned all its candidates that whenever the subject comes up, they are to avoid mentioning ''entitlement reform,'' or ''privatization,'' or ''every option is on the table.'' Instead, the keywords are: ''strengthen, secure, save, preserve, protect.''
So I suspect Romney and Ryan would say that they want to change the current system in order to strengthen, secure, save, preserve and protect your future health care. Which will involve a lot of choices, even though every option is not on the table. Totally not.
Basically, the Republican message is that it's Barack Obama who is trying to destroy Medicare and that they will save it.
How do they think President Obama is going to destroy it?
Through Obamacare, the cause of everything that's wrong with the country today, possibly including forest fires and the helium shortage. The administration's theory is that new federal guidelines will force providers to be more efficient, reducing anticipated Medicare costs over the next 10 years by a little more than $700 billion.
The savings could be used to help provide health insurance coverage for the poor. That's the core of the G.O.P. complaint. A new Romney ad tells older voters to think of it this way: ''The money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you.''
That sounds as if Romney believes old people are kind of selfish.
You think? Anyhow, under Paul Ryan's proposal, instead of simply getting Medicare, people like you will be given a voucher and told to choose from among a whole bunch of health care plans. The Ryan theory was that the competition would force providers to be more efficient, reducing anticipated Medicare costs over the next 10 years by a little more than $700 billion.
Wait a minute ...
I know. But that was before he joined the ticket. Now all talk of $700 billion in savings is being retracted, like a great catfish being yanked by the throat from its cozy burrow.
If you want my opinion, Ryan's passion for health care cost-cutting is actually not directed at Medicare so much as Medicaid. The seniors who could really take a hit would be the ones in nursing homes who've already run through their own savings.
That's my Aunt Flossie! What's going to happen to Aunt Flossie?
Do you have a spare bedroom?
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/opinion/collins-middle-age-blues.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1254 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 16, 2012 Thursday
Just Trust Me
BYLINE: DAVID FIRESTONE
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 376 words
HIGHLIGHT: When it comes to his tax returns, Mitt Romney expects the public to accept his word.
Mitt Romney deigned to answer questions about his tax returns today, assuring reporters at a news conference that he had never paid less than 13 percent of his income in taxes in the last decade. That's considerably lower than the rate many middle-class families pay, but what's really remarkable is that Mr. Romney now expects the public to accept his word and move on.
He thinks today's statement is an effective counterweight to Senator Harry Reid's equally unsubstantiated charge that Mr. Romney paid no taxes in several previous years.
At some level, Mr. Romney doesn't seem to understand that voters don't automatically trust the assurances and promises of politicians. He and his wife seem genuinely shocked that they are being pressed to provide paperwork about the details of their financial lives.
"They have to understand that Mitt is honest," Ann Romney told NBC News this week. "His integrity is just golden." Why, she seemed to be saying, can't people see my husband the way I see him? "There's nothing we're hiding," she said.
A long tradition of American political scandal has made voters wary of any candidate's assertion of honesty. It's especially important for Mr. Romney to practice transparency given his history of using obscure and extensive tax shelters--unavailable to the wage-earning public.
But more broadly, this haughty trust-me attitude-why can't we escape these pestering questions and run on our own obvious goodness and decency?-extends to the rest of Mr. Romney's campaign. He's not just keeping his old tax returns secret. His tax plan is so vague that analysts can't score it without making broad assumptions. He won't admit that his government-contraction program will require cuts to popular programs. He hasn't told the truth about the difference between Mr. Ryan's proposed Medicare cuts and President Obama's, and voters are starting to realize it.
Last week, he released an ad accusing the president of ending the work requirement for welfare that was blatantly false.
If Mr. Romney wants voters to trust him on how much he paid in taxes, he needs to give them better reasons to trust his campaign for president.
Bain Never Left Romney
Look Over Here!
Was Romney Right About John Kerry?
Father Knows Best
Mitt Romney's Taxes
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1255 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 16, 2012 Thursday
Romney's Message Moves Beyond Jobs
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 948 words
HIGHLIGHT: In the last several weeks, Mr. Romney's campaign has been diverted - often of its own accord - from its singular focus on the economy.
For most of the last year, Mitt Romney has stuck to one basic message: President Obama has botched the economy.
Top aides have long promised that nothing could divert the campaign from its mission to drive that message home. Early ads assailed the economic plight of the country, focusing on job losses during Mr. Obama's tenure, the unemployment rate and the nation's growing debt.
But in the last several weeks, Mr. Romney's campaign has been diverted - often of its own accord - to a host of other topics. The once singular message has become far more diverse.
Mr. Romney has not abandoned his economic argument entirely. His stump speeches still include a searing critique of the president's inability to turn the economy around. And yet, the television ads made his campaign and his allies no longer feature that argument as the central one - at least for now.
The move suggests a strategic shift by Mr. Romney's advisers to seize on other subjects - welfare, Medicare, religion - that might help fire up conservatives while also trying to appeal to wavering swing voters.
But in the meantime, the campaign risks losing the disciplined message that once appeared to be the hallmark of Mr. Romney's second run for the White House.
Here's a rundown of the messages from Mr. Romney's team during the past several weeks.
NEGATIVITY Mr. Romney has made a concerted effort to accuse his rivals of conducting what the Republican candidate calls a hate-filled campaign. In a speech in Ohio this week, he told Mr. Obama to "take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago."
That theme has been echoed by his new vice-presidential pick, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, as well as his allies at the Republican National Committee and independent groups. It has generated headlines on numerous days in the last two weeks.
Aides say it is a response to attacks by Mr. Obama and his allies, in particular an ad by Priorities USA Action that implied Mr. Romney was responsible for the death of a man's wife, and unsubstantiated comments from Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, about Mr. Romney's taxes.
Democrats call it whining, and insist the Republican has been just as negative. Either way, the argument threatens to drown out everything else.
PAUL RYAN Announcing a vice-presidential pick was always going to shift the conversation. But Mr. Romney's decision to choose Mr. Ryan instead of one of his other potential running mates ensured a longer, more drawn-out period in which other messages would be drowned out.
And by announcing his pick early - two weeks before the start of the Republican convention - Mr. Romney provides plenty of time for attention to be diverted away from his basic themes.
Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney have started campaigning separately, but much of the media attention remains focused squarely on Mr. Ryan as reporters examine his background, his policy proposals and his initial foray onto the presidential stage.
MEDICARE Knowing that Mr. Ryan's proposals on Medicare would be controversial, Mr. Romney's campaign has chosen to go on offense with an ad accusing the president of cutting $716 billion from the health care program for older people.
The new ad, called "Paid in," defends the "Romney-Ryan plan" for Medicare, saying it protects benefits and strengthens it for "the next generation."
The ad comes as Mr. Obama's campaign and other Democrats begin an all-out effort to highlight Mr. Ryan's plan to eventually turn Medicare into a voucher program in which senior citizens receive help to purchase private insurance.
Not discussed in the ad? Unemployment, jobs or the deficit.
WELFARE The other big attack Mr. Romney's campaign has begun in recent weeks has been on the issue of welfare. Seizing on a recent directive by Mr. Obama's administration, the Romney campaign claims the president has eliminated the work requirement from the federal welfare program.
Mr. Romney has made the charge repeatedly on the stump, grabbing headlines every time. And his campaign has aired ads on the issue, prompting angry denunciations from Mr. Obama's campaign and numerous independent fact checkers who noted, accurately, that Mr. Obama's administration did no such thing.
FOREIGN POLICY The decision to take a weeklong trip to Europe was perhaps the first indication that Mr. Romney was willing to shift away from his basic economic message. Even if everything on the gone well at each stop, his campaign would have been off-message.
Mr. Romney's trip was consumed in part by gaffes in Londonand Israel that robbed the campaign of the news coverage it had hoped for. But when he returned, Mr. Romney began running a television ad highlighting his trip to Israel, criticizing Mr. Obama for having not visited there as president.
He also released another television ad accusing Mr. Obama of "declaring war on religion" by requiring some religious institutions to pay for contraception coverage. The ad highlights Mr. Romney's visit to Poland during the trip abroad.
Neither of the ads talks about America's economic situation.
'YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT' Unlike the other subjects, Mr. Romney's decision to hammer the president on his "build it" comments does fit with the broader economic message. Mr. Romney's campaign argues that Mr. Obama's comments reflect a lack of understanding about small businesses and their impact on the economy.
But the ads are still a departure from the more direct approach that characterized Mr. Romney's campaign for much of the year. Instead, the ads showcase small business owners upset with Mr. Obama's comments.
Those ads, too, drew denunciations from Mr. Obama and his allies, who said his words were taken out of context.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1256 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 16, 2012 Thursday
Obama and Romney to Suspend Ads on 9/11
BYLINE: JEREMY W. PETERS
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 168 words
HIGHLIGHT: Both President Obama and Mitt Romney have agreed to suspend their campaign commercials on Sept. 11, in honor of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
It is quite likely the only reprieve Americans will get from what is expected to be an especially heavy and sustained barrage of political advertising this fall. But on Sept. 11, President Obama and Mitt Romney have agreed to suspend their campaign commercials.
Their decision follows similar steps taken in 2004 and 2008, when both presidential nominees ceased campaign activities for the day in honor of the lives lost in the 2001 terror attacks.
A group called MyGoodDeed, which pushed to establish Sept. 11 as a national day of remembrance, had called for a pause in campaigning.
Navigating Sept. 11, which falls at the beginning of the presidential campaign's homestretch, has been a tricky maneuver for candidates. In 2008 Mr. Obama and his rival, Senator John McCain, appeared together at the World Trade Center site.
Four years earlier, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry honored the day separately, Mr. Kerry at a memorial in Boston and Mr. Bush in a live radio address from the White House.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1257 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 16, 2012 Thursday
New Ad From Democrats Attacks Michigan Lawmaker on Medicare
BYLINE: REBECCA BERG
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 252 words
HIGHLIGHT: The television ad, assailing Representative Dan Benishek of Michigan, is the first released by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the general election.
Medicare is the ammunition, and a Michigan congressman is the target of the latest ad released by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
The television ad, assailing Representative Dan Benishek of Michigan, is the first released by the committee during the general election.
"Benishek's voted to essentially end Medicare, forcing seniors to pay over $6,000 more a year," the ad's narrator says, referring indirectly to an estimate, released by the Congressional Budget Office, of the effects of Representative Paul D. Ryan's budget proposal.
Mr. Benishek is expected to face a tight race against State Representative Gary McDowell, whom Mr. Benishek defeated by 11 points for the same seat in 2010.
The attack ad represents part of a larger strategy by Democrats to make a prominent issue of Medicare, which they perceive as a major political weakness of Mr. Ryan's budget plan. That tack has already extended to some Congressional races, including ones in Montana and Florida.
Republicans, for their part, have so far responded publicly with defiance. In Ohio on Wednesday, just days after Mitt Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate, Mr. Ryan told a crowd of supporters: "We want this debate. We need this debate. And we will win this debate."
In private, however, some Republican strategists have expressed concern that the attack could prove effective.
Mr. Ryan's budget plan would cut the same amount of money from Medicare, more than $700 billion, as does President Obama's health care reform law.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1258 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
August 16, 2012 Thursday
The Electoral Art of War
BYLINE: CHARLES M. BLOW
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 880 words
HIGHLIGHT: Did the Obama campaign maneuver Mitt Romney into choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate?
Attack your opponent's strength: that has become the fundamental rule of modern politics.
The Obama campaign has had quite a bit of success attacking Romney's success. So much so that last week Romney jumped of the cliff of desperation and chose Paul Ryan, the Republican wonk star, Tea Party darling and boy wonder of dubious budgets, as his running mate.
This essentially shifted the campaign's conversation from Romney's best hope, a focus on the economy, to a worst case scenario - a didactic discussion of policy, particularly Medicare, in which Romney and Ryan (I like Ry-omney) must tell America to eat its spinach so we can grow up strong.
Having a debate about fundamentally changing Medicare during an election in which the two biggest swing states, Florida and Pennsylvania, are also among those with thegreatest percentage of the elderly (17.3 and 15.4 percent, respectively)? Sounds like a campaign with a death wish.
One thing that we learned from the health care debate is that many Americans resist change, on principle, even if might benefit them, because they are afraid of it. And it's hard for education campaigns to have an impact on an electorate conditioned to 15-second clips and satisfied with sound-bites.
Americans can have big discussions about big issues, but math and minor details are a hard combination to hang a campaign on.
So by hammering Romney on his strength, the Obama campaign forced him to make a disastrous choice for a running mate. According to a Gallup report issued on Monday, the response to the Ryan pick "is among the least positive reactions to a vice presidential choice Gallup has recorded in recent elections." Score one for Team Obama.
But now Romney appears to be going after Obama's strength: his likability.
Obama's favorability rating is in the mid-50s, according to recent polls, while Romney's is in the mid-40s.
At a campaign stop in Ohio on Tuesday, Romney said of Obama:
And so his campaign has resorted to diversions and distractions, to demagoguing and defaming others. This is an old game in politics; what's different this year is that the president is taking things to a new low. His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency.
Romney continued:
Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower. This is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like.
That was a reference to an unfortunate comment Vice President Joe Biden made to a largely black audience in Virginia. Biden said:
Romney wants to let the - he said the first 100 days - he's gonna let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street. He gonna put y'all back in chains.
Some have suggested that Biden's comment was a reference to slavery. If it was, I'm not a fan of such references. But it's hardly the place of the Republicans to object now, given that they said nothing when one of their primary candidates, Herman Cain, stewed in slavery metaphors. Cain was fond of saying that he had left the "Democrat plantation." In one speech, Cain said, about being a black conservative, "I tell some of my callers: It may shock you, but some black people can think for themselves." In an ad, Cain said: "our tax code is the 21st century version of slavery."
I don't recall Republicans complaining then. In fact, Cain even led in the polls for a while. This feels hypocritical.
We should have seen Romney's new tack coming, because he began hinting at it last week. As NBC News reported Friday, Romney "said in the interview he would like a pledge (of sorts) with Obama that there be no 'personal' attack ads":
Our campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon - business or family or taxes or things of that nature.
Question: Is Romney really saying that scrutinizing his business record - which he has held up as one of his chief qualifications to be president - is personal? But we digress.
He continued: "We only talk about issues. And we can talk about the differences between our positions and our opponent's position."
Of his own campaign, Romney said:
Our ads haven't gone after the president personally. We haven't dredged up the old stuff that people talked about last time around. We haven't gone after the personal things.
The Romney campaign's special pleading for substance and civility is strange given that the super PACs supporting it drowned his primary opponents in negative ads.
Newt Gingrich got it so badly that he declared, "I've been Romney-boated."
At the time, Romney's take on negative advertising was clear: "If you can't stand the relatively modest heat in the kitchen right now wait until Obama's hell's kitchen shows up."
Well, it has shown up and it has worked just like Romney's did then. Now he's whining that Obama is winning.
So far the Obama campaign has simply outsmarted the Romney campaign in the electoral art of war. This change in strategy is just Romney's most recent attempt to regain his footing: trying to paint a likable president as a hateful one.
Good luck with that.
Battle of the Placards
The Welfare Gambit
Economy or Personality?
Fact-Checking Is Not Enough
Britain or Bust
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1259 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
August 16, 2012 Thursday
From the House to the White House
BYLINE: LEWIS L. GOULD
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 882 words
HIGHLIGHT: The history of vice-presidential candidates drawn from the House, like Paul Ryan, is entertaining and revealing.
In all the media excitement over Mitt Romney's selection of Representative Paul D. Ryan as his running mate on the Republican ticket, little attention has been focused on the rarity of an incumbent member of the House of Representatives holding second place on a national ticket. Each party has done it twice since 1900, with one success and one failure for both Republicans and Democrats so far.
The Republicans led off in 1908 with the selection of James S. Sherman to run with William H. Taft. A representative from upstate New York, Sherman was chosen to balance the "Western" choice of Taft, from Ohio. After the election, Sherman (known as "Sunny Jim") played almost no role in the Taft presidency. He presided over the Senate and played golf. After Taft defeated Theodore Roosevelt in the bitter 1912 Republican national convention, Sherman was re-nominated by default. He died of a heart condition shortly before the November voting and is now generally and deservedly forgotten.
Twenty years later, in the tumultuous 1932 Democratic convention that nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt for the first time, the Speaker of the House, John Nance Garner of Texas (nicknamed "Cactus Jack"), threw his delegates to F.D.R. at a key moment to break a multiballot deadlock and received the vice presidency in return. Later he famously opined that the position was not worth "a bucket of warm piss." Garner sought the presidential nomination himself in 1940 but could not overcome the third term sentiment for President Roosevelt.
Sherman and Garner were at least credible choices at the time. Barry M. Goldwater's selection in 1964 of another New York House member, William A. Miller from Niagara County, was based on the theory that the intense partisanship Miller had shown as a Republican would aggravate Lyndon B. Johnson and drive him, in Goldwater's word, "nuts." Since Goldwater had no hope of carrying New York state, the choice of Miller had scant electoral rationale. Following Goldwater's defeat, Miller was relegated to obscurity until he returned in 1975 in an American Express card commercial asking "Do You Know Me?"
In 1984, facing electoral prospects as bleak as those of Goldwater, Walter F. Mondale listened to the feminist wing of the Democratic Party and selected Geraldine A. Ferraro as the first female running mate. Beyond that creditable innovation, Ferraro turned out to have crippling flaws, including a less than compelling campaign style and tangled family finances that invited skeptical press scrutiny. Thus the third House member from New York to be put on a national ticket went down.
Jack Kemp in 1996 was probably better known as a quarterback for the Buffalo Bills and housing secretary for George Bush than for his years as a tax-cutter in the House. Similarly, Dick Cheney had been a House member but his nomination in 2000 owed more to his executive experience in the White House and Defense Department and his shrewd exploitation of the selection process he oversaw for George W. Bush. The first President Bush himself had spent two terms in the House and lost two races for the Senate before becoming Ronald Reagan's vice president.
To the chagrin of those from the lower House of Congress, the hated Senate has been a more promising route for vice presidents, from J. Danforth Quayle to Al Gore to Joseph R. Biden Jr. The Senate has also sent three men from the chamber right to the presidency: Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama. Experience in the House can be plus; serving in the House when nominated, not so much. House members just don't seem to have the presumed political heft of the solons in the upper house.
Can Paul Ryan emerge as a Sherman or a Garner, or will he languish as a Miller or a Ferraro? Is he an inspired choice or a risky pick, given his positions on Medicare vouchers and tax cuts for the wealthy? Some on the right already seem to wish that Ryan were the presidential candidate himself, which brings to mind the story that circulated when President Calvin Coolidge told William E. Borah, a senator from Idaho, in 1924 that he wanted him on the ticket. Borah is said to have replied: "Which place, Mr. President?"
Tickets where the vice presidential candidate seems to have more ideological and intellectual heft than the standard-bearer can be problematic. Think Michael S. Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988. Perhaps Romney's choice did not turn on Ryan's membership in the House or even on his status as chairman of the Budget Committee. Rather it played to a widespread sense on the right that Ryan would dominate Vice President Biden in their single debate and at the same time, by his mere presence, throw President Obama off his game.
So Ryan, like William Miller, may seem most attractive to Republicans as a means of driving Democrats to distraction and thus tempting them into a awkward gaffe or fatal slip. Ryan faces the demanding task of demonstrating that his reputation as a budget wonk and Republican intellectual in the House rests on more than just the marked absence in his caucus of serious competitors for these labels. Otherwise there may be an American Express commercial in his future, too.
The Voter's Burden
Other Stops: Palin in Comparison to Hillary Clinton
Other Stops
Other Stops
Bad V.P. Picks
LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1260 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 16, 2012 Thursday
FINAL EDITION
Welfare rules need airing
BYLINE: Bob McDonnell
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 299 words
Elections should be about ideas and character. The two key questions before voters are these: Who is best suited to lead the country, and what are his or her policies? In this election, the specific issue is who has the vision to get our great nation out of debt and back to work. In a large democracy such as ours, television advertising is a very important means of answering these questions. This election cycle, we're witnessing the use and abuse of such advertising.
TV ads that accuse a candidate of causing the death of individuals, based upon unadulterated falsehood, have no place in our political discourse. Allies of President Obama, using a super PAC as a political fig leaf, have been running such an ad.
This is shameful. President Obama and his top political advisers refuse to denounce it. Neutral outside observers have not been so reticent. "On just every level, this ad stretches the bounds of common sense and decency" is what The Washington Post said.
There is a world of difference between ads that are sheer character assassination and those that passionately engage differences on the issues. The Romney campaign has been running ads pointing out that the Obama administration has issued a policy to permit the scuttling of the work requirements set by the historic 1996 welfare reform. One can disagree with the point made in these ads, but civil disagreement about the issues is the essence of campaigning, or at least it should be.
Perhaps because his own record of high unemployment and historic debt and deficits is so difficult to defend, the president is silent while poison is poured into the political atmosphere.
This is not the way Gov. Romney campaigns for office and never will be.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wrote at the request of the Romney campaign.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1261 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 16, 2012 Thursday
FINAL EDITION
Voters' heads spin as camps spin Medicare;
Deciphering fact from fiction not easy as mud flies
BYLINE: Kelly Kennedy and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 2A
LENGTH: 749 words
To hear President Obama's re-election campaign tell it, you would think Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to end Medicare immediately and give the money to millionaires.
And to hear Romney and Ryan tell it, you'd think Obama wants to fleece Granny and Grandpa of $700 billion in Medicare benefits and use the cash to finance "Obamacare."
The truth is nothing of the sort -- but those charges may drown out the truth between now and Election Day.
"Campaign periods are not a good time for accurate information about serious policy issues," said Gail Wilensky, a health policy analyst for Project HOPE and senior health adviser to President George H.W. Bush.
One advertisement from Obama says that there are serious philosophical differences between the two candidates. "I saw that as a good advertisement," she said. "They are proposing differing solutions, and you need to figure out where you stand on those differences."
The goal of both campaigns is to accuse the other of weakening Medicare -- something independent experts say is inevitable if the program's unsustainable growth is to be contained.
"The truth is that no one can preserve Medicare as we know it," says Bob Laszewski, a health care consultant. "There isn't a prayer that your father's Medicare will be around in 10 years."
Here's what the proposals would really do -- and what they would not.
The Romney-Ryan plan
Q: Obama says Romney wants to "end Medicare as we know it." Is that true?
A: Not really. The original budget plan written by Ryan and passed by House Republicans would turn Medicare into a "premium support" plan. Seniors would have a fixed government subsidy with which to purchase private insurance -- but the new version of that plan includes an option to retain traditional Medicare coverage.
Q: Does Ryan's plan affect people on Medicare today, as the latest online ad by the Obama campaign implies by showing seniors in a seated exercise class and referencing "Florida's massive retirement population"?
A: No. It would not begin until 2023. That means today's seniors, plus those 55 and older, would be exempted from the new system. And by the time there's a deal on any plan, a 10-year exemption likely would include people younger than 55 today.
Q: Would the Ryan plan raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67?
A: Yes, by 2034, but the eligibility age for Social Security already is headed to 67. Medicare is in worse financial shape than Social Security. In last year's deficit-reduction talks, Obama was willing to consider the higher age in exchange for higher taxes on the wealthy.
Q: Would the Ryan plan affect rich and poor alike?
A: No. Like Obama's plan, the Republican plan includes higher Medicare premiums for wealthier beneficiaries. And it includes extra government subsidies for lower-income beneficiaries.
Q: Would private insurance options be more expensive?
A: Yes, because the money seniors would get to put toward their insurance would be capped, while medical costs would not. But the figure used as recently as Wednesday by Obama while campaigning in Iowa -- that seniors would pay an average of $6,400 more annually -- is based on the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of an older version of Ryan's plan.
The Obama health care law
Q: Does the Obama plan cut about $716 billion from Medicare, as the Romney campaign argues it does?
A: Not exactly. There are no cuts in benefits, and, in fact, seniors have already seen preventive services, such as annual exams and cancer screenings, with no co-pays. Instead, the savings comes by decreasing provider payments. Ryan's plan would repeal the health care law but keep the $716 billion in savings in place. Romney says he favors "putting that $716 billion back."
Q: Does Romney oppose these cuts?
A: He says he does -- but Ryan's budget includes them.
Q: What about Medicare Advantage? Do those benefits decrease, as the Romney campaign has claimed?
A: No. Payments to Medicare Advantage insurers created to encourage participation will shrink to levels of traditional Medicare payments. Insurers must provide all benefits to participate in Medicare Advantage.
Q: Will Medicare Part B average monthly premiums increase under Obama's plan, more than doubling to $247 by 2014, as claimed in an anonymous chain e-mail circulating again?
A: No. The premium fell in 2012 to $99.90, down $14.50 from 2011. Future premiums have yet to be figured because they're based on Medicare costs, but Medicare trustees predict average premiums won't top $200 until 2020.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1262 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 16, 2012 Thursday
FINAL EDITION
Obama, Romney ads peddle fiction, stoke anger
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 640 words
Political ads often stretch facts to the breaking point, but the people who create them usually feel constrained to back up their claims by citing sources -- at least enough to keep neutral fact-checkers from exposing their work as fiction.
Not so in this year's presidential campaign. There's no nice way to say this: President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are both condoning deliberate falsehoods. Here are the details:
Two ads from GOP candidate Mitt Romney accuse Obama of gutting the work requirement imposed on welfare recipients in the 1990s. Under Obama's plan, one ad says, "you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Sounds infuriating, which is the goal. But it's just not true.
Neutral, non-partisan fact-checkers such as FactCheck.org say Romney's claim is simply false. PolitiFact.com gives the ad its ultimate "Pants on Fire!" award for complete mendacity. Even Newt Gingrich, the Republican most responsible for creating the work requirement when he was House speaker, conceded there's "no proof" that the requirement is being removed.
Like most big lies, this one starts with a snippet of truth, then spins a fantasy. The basis is a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services in July giving states the flexibility to devise their own ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs. There's a catch: To qualify, states have to show they can do as well or better than they would under the current rules at getting welfare recipients employed and off the rolls.
So work requirements are not reduced. Instead, states are empowered to find new approaches, the sort of flexibility Republicans typically demand when they criticize "one-size-fits-all" government rules.
Was there some other hidden agenda? Not likely. The program was initiated after several states -- some with Republican governors, some headed by Democrats -- complained that the work rules were too bureaucratic. Utah, a Republican stronghold, argued that state employees' time would be better spent finding people jobs than filling out federal forms.
The ad is just hype aimed at whipping up anger.
The same is true of an anti-Romney ad put together by the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities Action USA. It suggests that Romney and his former firm, Bain Capital, were responsible for the cancer death of a woman whose husband lost his job after a Bain investment went sour.
PolitiFact.com called the ad's claim "false," and FactCheck.org said it was "misleading."
In the ad, former steelworker Joe Soptic says that "a short time after" he was laid off and lost his health insurance, his wife became ill, was eventually diagnosed with cancer and died. "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone," Soptic says, "and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned."
It's certainly true that people who lose their health insurance are in jeopardy. But the ad twists the story in grossly misleading ways. By the time Bain's investment went bad and the plant closed in 2001, Romney had long since given up day-to-day control of Bain. Soptic's wife had her own health insurance, though she later lost it. And her death occurred not "a short time after" Soptic lost his job but five years later.
The implication that Romney is somehow responsible for this woman's death crosses far over the line between reasonable campaign hyperbole and shameless falsehood.
Obama aides have said that campaign law bars them from having anything to do with an ad made by a super PAC, but that's just a dodge. Obama's staff and the president himself should disavow the ad.
By the same token, Romney should retract his own demonstrably false accusations. The fact that neither candidate will do the right thing speaks badly of both, and makes an already tawdry campaign even worse.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1263 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 16, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Fear and loathing on the trail
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 1156 words
No one expected Campaign 2012 to be positive or uplifting. The country's problems are too severe and the battle lines between Republicans and Democrats have been hardened by almost four years of conflict between the White House and Congress.
But what is most striking about the contest is not just the negativity or the sheer volume of attack ads raining down on voters in swing states. It is the sense that all restraints are gone, the guardrails have disappeared and there is no incentive for anyone to hold back. The other guy does it, so we're going to do it, too. Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) as his vice presidential running mate seemed like an opportunity for both sides to pause and reset after one of the ugliest weeks of the year. Instead, this week has produced the harshest rhetoric and the angriest accusations of the campaign.
Vice President Biden triggered the latest round Tuesday with lines that, had a Republican uttered them, probably would have set off an even bigger firestorm. He told an audience in Virginia that Romney would "unchain" big banks if elected and then added, "They're going to put y'all back in chains."Biden later tried to temper his language, but the damage was done. Within hours, Romney unloaded on the president. Campaigning in Ohio, he said that Obama's "angry and desperate" campaign had brought disrespect to the office of the presidency. "Mr. President," he added, "take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."
That brought an incendiary response from the Obama team. Spokesman Ben LaBolt said Romney's comments "seemed unhinged."
Both Romney and Obama talk about this campaign being about big choices. That's certainly true, given the candidates' opposing worldviews. But fear and anger motivate each side's activists. Partisans imagine the worst will happen if the other side wins. That, in turn, animates the strategies unfolding now.
Mock outrage has long been a part of every campaign's toolbox, but there is a sense now that the outrage is genuine, that the disrespect that the Chicago and Boston teams feel for each other has escalated and becomes the justification for ever harsher attacks.
Neither side has had to look far for an excuse to attack or cry foul. Obama's allies took the campaign over the edge last week and his team did nothing to stop it. The most egregious example of a campaign out of bounds was an ad prepared by Priorities USA, a super PAC supporting the president. The ad linked Romney to the cancer death of the wife of Joe Soptic, who lost his job and health insurance when a steel company that Bain Capital took over while Romney was at the firm later went bankrupt, after Romney left Bain.
The spot was not shown on television last week but did air in Cleveland this week. Obama campaign advisers at first tried to distance themselves from it by saying they didn't know the details of Soptic's situation. In fact, they had used him in an ad earlier this year and put him on a conference call with reporters at the time.
The Obama campaign also has declined to denounce Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) for making the unsubstantiated accusation that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. He said that a Bain investor told him that, but he would not identify the person or retract the claim when Romney denied the charge.
Mention the Soptic ad to Obama campaign officials and instead of showing remorse or regret, they point to the spot Romney aired that accuses Obama of gutting the work requirement in the welfare reform act that was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
The changes were in response to requests from some governors, including Republicans, who wanted more flexibility. Administration officials say they are not letting states off the hook on the work requirement, and Clinton denounced the ad as false. A leading Republican welfare reform expert has said it is "implausible" to believe that Obama is trying to keep more people on welfare. Fact-checking outlets have declared the ad erroneous. Romney's campaign has doubled down rather than walk away.
Negative ads have become one of the growth industries in an otherwise weak economy. How much is being spent? Romney's campaign briefed reporters last Friday and included the following statistics. The amount spent on all advertising since early April in four key states is: Florida, $95 million; Ohio, $92 million, Virginia, $68 million; and North Carolina, $50 million.
News organizations instituted fact-checking and ad watches in reaction to earlier campaigns, when candidates were getting away with half-truths and worse, with little accountability. These have become robust and increasingly comprehensive. But they are not providing much of a check on the campaigns' behavior.
The only check on the campaigns is the marketplace, said John Geer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University. "If voters move against his attacks, [Obama] will move away from them," he wrote in an e-mail response to a question. "But right now, the attacks are working on swing voters. The other 90 percent of the public are pretty much fixed in their preferences. They may be unhappy about [the ads], but they are not driving the marketplace."
But there is no check on rhetoric. Romney and his advisers have been seething over the tactics of Obama's campaign and its Democratic allies, including the Soptic ad and the president making what seemed like a joking reference Tuesday to an old story about Romney strapping his dog to the top of the family car during a vacation.
Obama and his team have their list of grievances about the claims and accusations made by Romney and his allies. They point to what they view as rhetoric questioning the president's patriotism and American values - code, they believe, for a revival of birtherism.
This campaign will end in November. Then it will be either Obama's or Romney's responsibility to try to govern. Both sides have turned the contest into an all-or-nothing battle and hope to claim a mandate on the basis of the outcome. But it will take time and great effort for the winner to drain the poison from the system if the campaign continues on this course.
balzd@washpost.com
Read previous Dan Balz columns at washingtonpost.com/politics.
Name Blurb Flag true Variable Size Panel Image Panel Image Background Image
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1264 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 16, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
In campaign ring, gloves are off
BYLINE: Dana Milbank
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 754 words
The umbrage industry is working overtime this week.
Mitt Romney, the Republicans' presidential standard-bearer, is so outraged by President Obama's attacks that he called the president a hater: "Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."
On Wednesday afternoon, John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, re-tweeted an article by The Washington Post's Dan Balz titled, "A most poisonous campaign." McCain added his opinion: "I agree - it's the worst I've ever seen." That's the same conclusion that conservative commentator Brit Hume drew for his Fox News Channel viewers on Tuesday night. "This is about as ugly as I've seen it get," he said.
Forgive me, but I'm not prepared to join this walk down Great Umbrage Street just yet. Yes, it's ugly out there. But is this worse than four years ago, when Obama was accused by the GOP vice presidential nominee of "palling around with terrorists"? Or eight years ago, when Democratic nominee John Kerry was accused of falsifying his Vietnam War record?
What's different this time is that the Democrats are employing the same harsh tactics that have been used against them for so long, with so much success. They have ceased their traditional response of assuming the fetal position when attacked, and Obama's campaign is giving as good as it gets - and then some.
Balz is correct when he observes that the "most striking" element of the campaign is "the sense that all restraints are gone, the guardrails have disappeared and there is no incentive for anyone to hold back." In large part, this is because the Democrats are no longer simply whining about the other side being reckless and unfair: They are being reckless and unfair themselves.
The starkest example of this was an ad by Priorities USA, a pro-Obama super PAC, that implied that Romney was to blame for a woman's death because her husband lost his job and health insurance when Bain Capital took over his steel mill. After an initial attempt to distance themselves from the super PAC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz comically claimed that she had "no idea" about the political affiliation of the group, which is run by two former Obama staffers - Democratic officials defended the ad's accusation.
David Axelrod said Sunday on "Meet the Press" that the ad "doesn't cross the line" and then pivoted to declare that Romney "ought to be ashamed of himself" for running a false ad about Obama's welfare policy.
It's true that Romney is in a weak position to be complaining that the other side has been mean and nasty. He won the nod by eviscerating his rivals with negative ads and accusations, and an ad his team aired last week that falsely claimed Obama was gutting welfare-to-work requirements injected racial politics into the campaign.
Also, many of the things Romney complains about are not unusual. Asked Wednesday morning by CBS News to explain why he thinks Obama has brought hatred into the campaign, Romney mentioned "the divisiveness based upon income, age, ethnicity and so forth. It's designed to bring a sense of enmity and jealousy and anger." But that's standard fare for a presidential campaign.
Obama and Vice President Biden dialed back their rhetoric on Wednesday, a day after Biden enraged the other side by telling a racially mixed audience in Virginia that Romney, by unshackling Wall Street, would "put y'all back in chains."
Biden, at Virginia Tech on Wednesday, made sure to state that Romney and running mate Paul Ryan are "decent, honorable guys." When Obama, in Iowa, mentioned Ryan, the crowd began to boo. "No, no, no," Obama said. "I know him. He's a good man, beautiful family. . . . I just happen to fundamentally disagree with his vision."
But that doesn't mean the Democrats are retiring their newly acquired incendiary devices. Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, said the campaign had "no problem" with Biden's chains claim and said Obama "probably agrees with Joe Biden's sentiments." She derided the Romney side's "faux outrage" and called the Republicans "hypocritical."
Eight years ago, Cutter was a staffer on the Kerry campaign when the candidate was undone by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on his war record. Cutter, like other Democrats, learned a hard truth back then: Umbrage doesn't win elections. Ruthlessness does.
danamilbank@washpost.com
Read more Washington Sketch columns at washingtonpost.com/milbank.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1265 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 16, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Need to donate on the run?FEC okays cellphone texts.
BYLINE: T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A section; Pg. A11
LENGTH: 701 words
A plea to text "donate" to 62262 (that's O-B-A-M-A) may be coming to a political ad near you.
The Federal Election Commission announced Wednesday that it has approved legal guidance that will allow small political donations to be added to cellphone bills when a campaign supporter sends a specific text message.
The agency unanimously approved two opinions spelling out technical details of how the proposals from Republican and Democratic firms would comply with the complex requirements of campaign finance law. It was an unusually swift move from an agency that's known for foot dragging and partisan gridlock.
"These proposals have engendered widespread, bipartisan support from political campaigns and reform groups alike because they offer a new and dynamic vehicle for political engagement," FEC member Cynthia Bauerly said in a statement. "I feel strongly that making the political process more accessible to more people will help ensure full participation in our democracy, and today's opinions represent an important step in that direction."
Whether campaigns could start soliciting text-message donations before the November elections depends on how quickly the carriers can negotiate the details with companies providing the service to campaigns.
"They are reviewing the opinion to see if there are any remaining issues," said Jan Baran, who heads the election law group at Wiley Rein and represented the CTIA Wireless Association, the trade group for cellphone carriers. Baran said the guidance from the agency means "the most important obstacle was removed."
President Obama's campaign has already aggressively pursued donations by sending text messages with links to Internet donation pages. A message at the end of July said, "President Obama needs your support more than ever. . . . Please pitch in what you can now."
That extra step of requiring donors to enter their credit card information through a Web page could make all the difference, however. A study from the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that donations can be highly impulsive, with half of donors who supported disaster relief after the 2010 Haitian earthquake giving immediately upon hearing about the campaign via text. Overall, 9 percent of Americans have made charitable donations with their cellphones, contributing an estimated $43 million to disaster relief in Haiti alone. In June, the FEC approved a plan from a bipartisan pair of political consulting firms that had support from both Obama's campaign and that of Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
Wireless carriers raised objections, however, saying they didn't want to be liable for making sure donors were American citizens or that they stayed within the $5,000 limit that one person can give directly to a political candidate. The FEC said Wednesday that campaigns and the companies working with them would bear those responsibilities.Under the plan, contributions from a phone number would be limited to $50 in each billing period, or $200 in total. After that, the campaign would need to ask for the donor's identity to enforce contribution limits and disclosure requirements.
Wireless carriers also wanted the ability to reject working with some political campaigns they deemed too controversial, asking the FEC to insert a line in its legal guidance saying the carriers could "refuse to sell services to candidates who, based on the wireless service providers' business judgments, espouse views that may harm [their] brands."
That prompted Revolution Messaging, a Democratic consulting firm that has another text-message proposal before the commission, to point out that carriers already sell "gangster rap ringtones, sex tip text messaging, pornography and horoscopes without hurting their brand images" - perhaps demonstrating that associating with political candidates can be more controversial than selling pornography.
The FEC said Wednesday that the wireless carriers "may decide, for commercial reasons, to accept only proposals from some political committees and not others."
"We take that as a green light on this issue," Baran said.
farnamt@washpost.com
For previous Influence Industry columns, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage .
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1266 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 16, 2012 Thursday 12:03 PM EST
Congress' record unpopularity - and what it means for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney;
People (still) hate Congress. Why that's a bad thing for the Republican presidential ticket.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 989 words
That just one in 10 Americans approve of the job Congress is doing in new Gallup polling - the lowest ebb for the institution in nearly four decades - is nothing new. After all, congressional approval hasn't crested 20 percent in more than a year.
What is new, however, is that Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate is a 14-year veteran of Congress and currently chairs the House Budget Committee.
Romney's decision to pick Ryan to share the national ticket has caused all sorts of ripple effects - Medicare, anyone? - not least in giving new life to Democratic attempts to elevate House Republicans in the presidential race.
On Monday in Iowa, Obama described Ryan as "one of those leaders of Congress standing in the way" of passage of the farm bill.
And the president - currently in the midst of a three-day Iowa campaign swing - has taken to describing Ryan, ashe did during a stop on Tuesday in Oskaloosa, as "the ideological leader of the Republicans in Congress."
None of that is by accident. Obama and his campaign team have been working for months to link Romney to the unpopular policies of congressional Republicans with very limited success, due to the fact that the former Massachusetts governor has never served a day in federal office.
In putting Ryan - a man who has spent the past 20-plus years of his life in and around conservative circles in Washington - on the ticket, Romney has breathed new life into Obama's "Mitt Romney=congressional Republicans" hit.
Of course, nothing in politics happens in a vacuum. So, even as Obama is trying to tie Ryan/Romney to everything people don't like about Congress - and, at this point, that's pretty much everything - the Republican ticket is seeking to cast the Wisconsin Republican as the exception to the Washington political rule.
"In a city that is far too often characterized by pettiness and personal attacks, Paul Ryan is a shining exception," Romney said Saturday in his speech introducing Ryan for the first time. "There are a lot of people in the other party who might disagree with Paul Ryan; I don't know of anyone who doesn't respect his character and judgment."
It remains to be seen if the "Ryan as reformer to a broken process" narrative can catch on. But simply by choosing someone with over a decade of congressional experience as his VP, Romney has handed Obama a golden opportunity to re-litigate the idea that the GOP presidential nominee should be answerable for the unpopularity of his party in Washington. And that's not a good thing for the GOP.
Thompson wins in Wisconsin: National Republicans caught a rare primary break Tuesday when former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson won the party's Senate nomination.
Thompson ran atop a field that included businessman Eric Hovde and former congressman Mark Neumann. He will face Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) in November.
In a season full of upsets in Republican primaries, Thompson stands out as a key victory for the party. Polls have shown the governor, who was broadly popular during his tenure and served four (!) terms, running significantly better than other Republicans against Baldwin.
For all the other results Tuesday, including two incumbents apparently falling, make sure to check out The Fix's recap.
Crossroads launches Senate ads in seven states: The conservative outside group Crossroads GPS is spending $4.7 million on seven new ads in six states.
The ads take on various race-specific subjects and will run in Nevada, Virginia (two ads), Missouri, Ohio, Montana and Wisconsin.
All six states are key to control of the Senate.
Controversial Obama super PAC airs - by accident: More than a week after it first caused an uproar, the Obama super PAC ad that suggests Romney is responsible for a woman's death has aired on TV for the first time - by accident.
BuzzFeed reports that the ad aired in Cleveland on Tuesday morning, according to an ad tracking service. But apparently it wasn't supposed to.
"Station error is all," said Priorities USA co-founder Bill Burton.
Fact-checkers everywhere have denounced the ad, and the media has pressured the Obama campaign and the White House to opine on it, which they have declined to do.
Romney's campaign is running its own ad on the controversy, suggesting the ad is beneath the dignity of the president.
Fixbits:
Romney responds to Vice President Biden's "chains" comment, saying, "Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago." And the Obama campaign responds: "Gov. Romney's comments tonight seemed unhinged, and particularly strange coming at a time when he's pouring tens of millions of dollars into negative ads that are demonstrably false." (A Romney ad on welfare reform has been decried by fact-checkers as well.)
Romney's campaign raised $7.4 million in the three days after Ryan's selection.
Donald Trump says he has a "big surprise" in store for the Republican National Convention. We're sure Republicans are thrilled.
A trio of House Democrats is trying to get a question about the Simpson-Bowles debt commission barred from the first presidential debate.
The New Hampshire governor's race has yet to take shape, according to a new Granite State Poll.
Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) is up with his first ad.
Nevada GOP congressional hopeful Danny Tarkanian says he would go broke if he had to post bond on a $17 million judgment against he and his family.
Former congressman Tom DeLay (R-Texas) is officially a lobbyist.
Must-reads:
"Judges for sale" - Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker
"Utility's Backing of Convention Tests Obama Fund-Raising Pledge" - Jim Rutenberg, New York Times
"Obama, Romney campaigns shift to debate over energy" - Amy Gardner and Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post
"Can Mitt Romney become more likeable?" - Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post
"At campaign stop, Obama talks about White House beer" - Amy Gardner, Washington Post
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1267 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 16, 2012 Thursday 12:07 AM EST
Can Connie Mack defeat Bill Nelson in Florida?;
Mack won a decisive victory in the GOP primary on Tuesday. But his next task is a much bigger challenge.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 734 words
Rep. Connie Mack IV cruised to victory on Tuesday in Florida's Republican Senate primary, winning nearly 60 percent of the vote against nominal competition he barely acknowledged during the campaign.
But toppling Sen. Bill Nelson, a likable second-term Democrat with a nearly $9 million campaign account is a considerably more demanding task. Mack begins the race as an underdog, but not one without a path to victory. To pull an upset, he'll need to tighten up a shaky campaign.
It's a tall order, but one that is eased a bit by GOP third-party groups rallying to his side and a name that is very well-known in the Sunshine State.
Mack's Tuesday win was a testament to a weak Republican field, not the strength of his own campaign, which was unsteady. He picked fights with influential local reporters. His campaign offered a muddled reaction to Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget proposal. And he had to weather negative headlines about his checkered past including an account of a 1990s bar fight with a professional baseball player.
Despite all this, Mack remains competitive in the general election.
A Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll conducted in late July showed him trailing Nelson by seven points. A Mason-Dixon poll had Mack down by just five points.
One reason for Mack's viability is his last name. His father, Connie Mack III, was a U.S. senator. His great-grandfather is in the Baseball Hall Of Fame. The Mack name is well-known in Florida, and is well-respected.
But there is a reason why Nelson is not in the tier of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats this cycle. He has also cultivated a reputation in Florida, and one that is separate from his dealings in Washington. And he enjoys an encouraging level of support among seniors, an influential subset of voters in the state.
Yet Nelson is not content to simply count on Mack's miscues. Earlier this month, he released a harsh ad that zeroed in on Mack's personal problems. The ad also said Mack voted to end Medicare, a reference to his 2011 vote for the Ryan budget plan which proposed to revamp Medicare into a voucher system for Americans under 55.
Mitt Romney's selection of Ryan as his vice presidential running mate could leave a lasting impression on the Senate race in Florida, a state with a substantial senior population. Democrats will no doubt go on offense in the debate over the future of Medicare.
But so will Mack, who said on a conference call with reporters Wednesday that Nelson and Obama are the ones gutting the program. Republicans have been pointing to Congressional Budget Office estimates from July, which said that spending for Medicare "would increase by an estimated $716 billion" over the next nine years under an effort to repeal the federal health-care law.
Nelson and Obama "are living in glass houses and playing catch with rocks," Mack said.
Mack's underdog bid is also getting some crucial help from outside groups - a key reason why he remains afloat in the race. The 60 Plus Association launched an ad campaign on Wednesday hitting Nelson. Already, Republicans have spent $9 million slamming the Democrat with negative ads. And billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has already written a seven-figure check to a pro-Mack super PAC.
"Connie is definitely looking stronger and that's attracting money to this race. The U.S. Chamber, super PACs are coming on board," said Florida Republican strategist Ana Navarro. "The money contest will be even or give an advantage to Mack."
Florida's tossup status at the presidential level will mean millions of dollars more in outside spending will be poured in over the next 11 weeks. If Romney wins the state, it would no doubt help Mack. Democratic-leaning automated pollster Public Policy Polling has generally found that Nelson runs ahead of Obama, but the latest survey showed that gap had narrowed.
Still, this isn't Nelson's first rodeo. He knows how to win statewide. He's held public office since the 1970s. And Mack's slip-ups afford Nelson a definite opportunity to personalize the race.
"Nelson's early ads against Mack are devastating, and he has the best campaign staff in Florida," said Florida Democratic strategist Todd Wilder. "They won't be making any big mistakes."
Mack's Tuesday win put him in a position to compete with Nelson. But there is little time celebrate for a candidate who needs to do nearly everything right to win in November.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1268 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 16, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
In campaign ring, gloves are off
BYLINE: Dana Milbank
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 754 words
The umbrage industry is working overtime this week.
Mitt Romney, the Republicans' presidential standard-bearer, is so outraged by President Obama's attacks that he called the president a hater: "Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."
On Wednesday afternoon, John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, re-tweeted an article by The Washington Post's Dan Balz titled, "A most poisonous campaign." McCain added his opinion: "I agree - it's the worst I've ever seen."
That's the same conclusion that conservative commentator Brit Hume drew for his Fox News Channel viewers on Tuesday night. "This is about as ugly as I've seen it get," he said.
Forgive me, but I'm not prepared to join this walk down Great Umbrage Street just yet. Yes, it's ugly out there. But is this worse than four years ago, when Obama was accused by the GOP vice presidential nominee of "palling around with terrorists"? Or eight years ago, when Democratic nominee John Kerry was accused of falsifying his Vietnam War record?
What's different this time is that the Democrats are employing the same harsh tactics that have been used against them for so long, with so much success. They have ceased their traditional response of assuming the fetal position when attacked, and Obama's campaign is giving as good as it gets - and then some.
Balz is correct when he observes that the "most striking" element of the campaign is "the sense that all restraints are gone, the guardrails have disappeared and there is no incentive for anyone to hold back." In large part, this is because the Democrats are no longer simply whining about the other side being reckless and unfair: They are being reckless and unfair themselves.
The starkest example of this was an ad by Priorities USA, a pro-Obama super PAC, that implied that Romney was to blame for a woman's death because her husband lost his job and health insurance when Bain Capital took over his steel mill. After an initial attempt to distance themselves from the super PAC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz comically claimed that she had "no idea" about the political affiliation of the group, which is run by two former Obama staffers - Democratic officials defended the ad's accusation.
David Axelrod said Sunday on "Meet the Press" that the ad "doesn't cross the line" and then pivoted to declare that Romney "ought to be ashamed of himself" for running a false ad about Obama's welfare policy.
It's true that Romney is in a weak position to be complaining that the other side has been mean and nasty. He won the nod by eviscerating his rivals with negative ads and accusations, and an ad his team aired last week that falsely claimed Obama was gutting welfare-to-work requirements injected racial politics into the campaign.
Also, many of the things Romney complains about are not unusual. Asked Wednesday morning by CBS News to explain why he thinks Obama has brought hatred into the campaign, Romney mentioned "the divisiveness based upon income, age, ethnicity and so forth. It's designed to bring a sense of enmity and jealousy and anger." But that's standard fare for a presidential campaign.
Obama and Vice President Biden dialed back their rhetoric on Wednesday, a day after Biden enraged the other side by telling a racially mixed audience in Virginia that Romney, by unshackling Wall Street, would "put y'all back in chains."
Biden, at Virginia Tech on Wednesday, made sure to state that Romney and running mate Paul Ryan are "decent, honorable guys." When Obama, in Iowa, mentioned Ryan, the crowd began to boo. "No, no, no," Obama said. "I know him. He's a good man, beautiful family. . . . I just happen to fundamentally disagree with his vision."
But that doesn't mean the Democrats are retiring their newly acquired incendiary devices. Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, said the campaign had "no problem" with Biden's chains claim and said Obama "probably agrees with Joe Biden's sentiments." She derided the Romney side's "faux outrage" and called the Republicans "hypocritical."
Eight years ago, Cutter was a staffer on the Kerry campaign when the candidate was undone by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on his war record. Cutter, like other Democrats, learned a hard truth back then: Umbrage doesn't win elections. Ruthlessness does.
danamilbank@washpost.com
Read more Washington Sketch columns at washingtonpost.com/milbank.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1269 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 16, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
Need to donate on the run?FEC okays cellphone texts.
BYLINE: T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A11
LENGTH: 697 words
A plea to text "donate" to 62262 (that's O-B-A-M-A) may be coming to a political ad near you.
The Federal Election Commission announced Wednesday that it has approved legal guidance that will allow small political donations to be added to cellphone bills when a campaign supporter sends a specific text message.
The agency unanimously approved two opinions spelling out technical details of how the proposals from Republican and Democratic firms would comply with the complex requirements of campaign finance law. It was an unusually swift move from an agency that's known for foot dragging and partisan gridlock.
"These proposals have engendered widespread, bipartisan support from political campaigns and reform groups alike because they offer a new and dynamic vehicle for political engagement," FEC member Cynthia Bauerly said in a statement. "I feel strongly that making the political process more accessible to more people will help ensure full participation in our democracy, and today's opinions represent an important step in that direction."
Whether campaigns could start soliciting text-message donations before the November elections depends on how quickly the carriers can negotiate the details with companies providing the service to campaigns.
"They are reviewing the opinion to see if there are any remaining issues," said Jan Baran, who heads the election law group at Wiley Rein and represented the CTIA Wireless Association, the trade group for cellphone carriers. Baran said the guidance from the agency means "the most important obstacle was removed."
President Obama's campaign has already aggressively pursued donations by sending text messages with links to Internet donation pages. A message at the end of July said, "President Obama needs your support more than ever. . . . Please pitch in what you can now."
That extra step of requiring donors to enter their credit card information through a Web page could make all the difference, however. A studyfrom the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that donations can be highly impulsive, with half of donors who supported disaster relief after the 2010 Haitian earthquake giving immediately upon hearing about the campaign via text. Overall, 9 percent of Americans have made charitable donations with their cellphones, contributing an estimated $43 million to disaster relief in Haiti alone.
In June, the FEC approved a plan from a bipartisan pair of political consulting firms that had support from both Obama's campaign and that of Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
Wireless carriers raised objections, however, saying they didn't want to be liable for making sure donors were American citizens or that they stayed within the $5,000 limit that one person can give directly to a political candidate. The FEC said Wednesday that campaigns and the companies working with them would bear those responsibilities.
Under the plan, contributions from a phone number would be limited to $50 in each billing period, or $200 in total. After that, the campaign would need to ask for the donor's identity to enforce contribution limits and disclosure requirements.
Wireless carriers also wanted the ability to reject working with some political campaigns they deemed too controversial, asking the FEC to insert a line in its legal guidance saying the carriers could "refuse to sell services to candidates who, based on the wireless service providers' business judgments, espouse views that may harm [their] brands."
That prompted Revolution Messaging, a Democratic consulting firm that has another text-message proposal before the commission, to point out that carriers already sell "gangster rap ringtones, sex tip text messaging, pornography and horoscopes without hurting their brand images" - perhaps demonstrating that associating with political candidates can be more controversial than selling pornography.
The FEC said Wednesday that the wireless carriers "may decide, for commercial reasons, to accept only proposals from some political committees and not others."
"We take that as a green light on this issue," Baran said.
farnamt@washpost.com
For previous Influence Industry columns, go towashingtonpost.com/fedpage.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1270 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 16, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
Fear and loathing on the trail
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 1061 words
No one expected Campaign 2012 to be positive or uplifting. The country's problems are too severe and the battle lines between Republicans and Democrats have been hardened by almost four years of conflict between the White House and Congress.
But what is most striking about the contest is not just the negativity or the sheer volume of attack ads raining down on voters in swing states. It is the sense that all restraints are gone, the guardrails have disappeared and there is no incentive for anyone to hold back. The other guy does it, so we're going to do it, too.
Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) as his vice presidential running mate seemed like an opportunity for both sides to pause and reset after one of the ugliest weeks of the year. Instead, this week has produced the harshest rhetoric and the angriest accusations of the campaign.
Vice President Biden triggered the latest round Tuesday with lines that, had a Republican uttered them, probably would have set off an even bigger firestorm. He told an audience in Virginia that Romney would "unchain" big banks if elected and then added, "They're going to put y'all back in chains."
Biden later tried to temper his language, but the damage was done. Within hours, Romney unloaded on the president. Campaigning in Ohio, he said that Obama's "angry and desperate" campaign had brought disrespect to the office of the presidency. "Mr. President," he added, "take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."
That brought an incendiary response from the Obama team. Spokesman Ben LaBolt said Romney's comments "seemed unhinged."
Both Romney and Obama talk about this campaign being about big choices. That's certainly true, given the candidates' opposing worldviews. But fear and anger motivate each side's activists. Partisans imagine the worst will happen if the other side wins. That, in turn, animates the strategies unfolding now.
Mock outrage has long been a part of every campaign's toolbox, but there is a sense now that the outrage is genuine, that the disrespect that the Chicago and Boston teams feel for each other has escalated and becomes the justification for ever harsher attacks.
Neither side has had to look far for an excuse to attack or cry foul. Obama's allies took the campaign over the edge last week and his team did nothing to stop it. The most egregious example of a campaign out of bounds was an ad prepared by Priorities USA, a super PAC supporting the president.
The ad linked Romney to the cancer death of the wife of Joe Soptic, who lost his job and health insurance when a steel company that Bain Capital took over while Romney was at the firm later went bankrupt, after Romney left Bain.
The spot was not shown on television last week but did air in Cleveland this week. Obama campaign advisers at first tried to distance themselves from it by saying they didn't know the details of Soptic's situation. In fact, they had used him in an ad earlier this year and put him on a conference call with reporters at the time.
The Obama campaign also has declined to denounce Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) for making the unsubstantiated accusation that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. He said that a Bain investor told him that, but he would not identify the person or retract the claim when Romney denied the charge.
Mention the Soptic ad to Obama campaign officials and instead of showing remorse or regret, they point to the spot Romney aired that accuses Obama of gutting the work requirement in the welfare reform act that was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
The changes were in response to requests from some governors, including Republicans, who wanted more flexibility. Administration officials say they are not letting states off the hook on the work requirement, and Clinton denounced the ad as false. A leading Republican welfare reform expert has said it is "implausible" to believe that Obama is trying to keep more people on welfare. Fact-checking outlets have declared the ad erroneous. Romney's campaign has doubled down rather than walk away.
Negative ads have become one of the growth industries in an otherwise weak economy. How much is being spent? Romney's campaign briefed reporters last Friday and included the following statistics. The amount spent on all advertising since early April in four key states is: Florida, $95 million; Ohio, $92 million, Virginia, $68 million; and North Carolina, $50 million.
News organizations instituted fact-checking and ad watches in reaction to earlier campaigns, when candidates were getting away with half-truths and worse, with little accountability. These have become robust and increasingly comprehensive. But they are not providing much of a check on the campaigns' behavior.
The only check on the campaigns is the marketplace, said John Geer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University. "If voters move against his attacks, [Obama] will move away from them," he wrote in an e-mail response to a question. "But right now, the attacks are working on swing voters. The other 90 percent of the public are pretty much fixed in their preferences. They may be unhappy about [the ads], but they are not driving the marketplace."
But there is no check on rhetoric. Romney and his advisers have been seething over the tactics of Obama's campaign and its Democratic allies, including the Soptic ad and the president making what seemed like a joking reference Tuesday to an old story about Romney strapping his dog to the top of the family car during a vacation.
Obama and his team have their list of grievances about the claims and accusations made by Romney and his allies. They point to what they view as rhetoric questioning the president's patriotism and American values - code, they believe, for a revival of birtherism.
This campaign will end in November. Then it will be either Obama's or Romney's responsibility to try to govern. Both sides have turned the contest into an all-or-nothing battle and hope to claim a mandate on the basis of the outcome. But it will take time and great effort for the winner to drain the poison from the system if the campaign continues on this course.
balzd@washpost.com
Read previous Dan Balz columns at washingtonpost.com/politics.
LOAD-DATE: August 16, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1271 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Medicare Fight Recasts Races For Congress
BYLINE: By CARL HULSE; Michael D. Shear and Sarah Wheaton contributed reporting from New York.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1011 words
WASHINGTON -- In one tight Florida House race, a hastily assembled TV commercial to begin airing Wednesday takes aim at a top target of Democrats, highlighting his votes ''to end Medicare as we know it.''Republicans in Montana are advertising on behalf of their Senate candidate, noting his stance against a Republican plan ''that could harm the Medicare program.'' House Republican strategists are advising their lawmakers to try to stay on the offensive over Medicare and steer clear of words like privatization.
The fight over Medicare, the popular federal health care program for older Americans, is rapidly intensifying in House and Senate races around the nation after the selection of Representative Paul D. Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate. Congressional Democrats and some analysts say that development could transform the fight for control of Congress, given his role as the author of a House-approved budget plan that would reshape Medicare.
''A House budget plan is a House budget plan,'' Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Tuesday. ''But all of the sudden the architect and definer of that has the potential of sitting in the White House, and that is really frightening to people.''
Despite political anxiety expressed privately by some Republican strategists about Mitt Romney's choice of Mr. Ryan, other top Republicans say that they welcome the fight over Medicare and that they believe they can win a national debate over the future of entitlement programs. They intend to paint the Democratic Party as the one putting Medicare at risk by failing to come up with a plan to keep it solvent as a wave of baby boomers approaches retirement age.
Mr. Romney said Tuesday that he would, if president, restore Medicare cuts that both President Obama and Congressional Republicans have backed and unveiled a new campaign advertisement trying to drive home that point.
''Paul Ryan and Republicans are the only ones who have stepped up with proposals,'' said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. ''These issues were going to come up anyway, and you might as well have your best and most articulate spokesman on the field making the case for it, and that is Paul Ryan.''
Mr. Ryan's new prominence has abruptly thrust Medicare into the top tier of issues, but it was always going to be a theme in the 2012 House and Senate elections and was already playing a role in advertising.
Democrats had long intended to assault Republicans who voted for the Ryan budget in 2011 and 2012 and were trying to find a way to figuratively put Mr. Ryan on the ballot with his colleagues. Now Mr. Ryan will literally be on the ballot, and top Democratic strategists say that in picking him, Mr. Romney has given Medicare a huge boost as a driving issue that could lift Democrats in dozens of close races.
''Mitt Romney has given us a lot to work with,'' said Representative Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. ''It was becoming challenging to try to nationalize the Ryan budget, and Mitt Romney just handed that to us.''
House Democrats moved quickly on Tuesday to try to cash in. In a high-profile South Florida race, the Democratic candidate, Patrick Murphy, prepared a new ad against the Republican incumbent, Allen B. West, that highlighted Mr. West's two votes for the Ryan budget while asserting that Mr. Murphy would ''fight for seniors, protect Medicare.''
While the new commercial does not specifically mention Mr. Ryan, strategists said it was fashioned to capitalize on his joining the race for the White House. It is also the leading edge of what is likely to be a flurry of ads, Web activity and aggressive political advocacy as the two parties compete to shape the narrative on Medicare.
In addition to helping bankroll Mr. Murphy's ad, the Congressional committee began automated phone calls in the districts of 50 Republican incumbents who voted for Mr. Ryan's budget, which would turn Medicare into a voucher program for future retirees. In Nevada, a labor group is buying online ads that say the Romney-Ryan ticket would drive up costs for older Americans.
As Democrats pushed the idea of a political windfall, top Republicans say they believe the worry about Mr. Ryan is overheated. They say they were already bracing for a Medicare line of attack and are more than ready for it.
''We'll take any opportunity to talk about Obamacare and the Medicare cuts that were included in it,'' said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, who said that Republicans had learned how to contend with the issue after having debated it for more than two years already.
In a private message to candidates, House Republican leaders sought to allay any concern by providing material on how to respond to inquiries on Medicare, suggesting that candidates make the case that Democrats have their own lightning rod of a running mate: the new health care law.
The message also advises Republicans to choose their words carefully and emphasize ''strengthen'' and ''protect'' over phrases like ''every option is on the table.''
Despite the Republicans' confidence in their ability to counter the Democrats, the Senate race in Montana offered evidence that some party leaders recognize that the Ryan budget could be a liability.
The state party there paid for an advertisement on behalf of Representative Denny Rehberg, a Republican who is in a close race with Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat. It lauds Mr. Rehberg for his votes against the Ryan budget, a stance that the advertisement said showed his independence in partisan Washington.
The ultimate impact of the Ryan pick on Congressional races will become clearer in the days ahead.
''Certainly more Democrats are more enthusiastic than they were last week,'' said Jessica Taylor, a senior analyst for the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. ''But whether it moves a ton of races, we are going to have to wait and see.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/us/with-ryan-in-medicare-fight-recasts-races-for-congress.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO (A13) CHARTS: Battle Lines on Care: Candidates and outside groups have begun to inject the Medicare issue into House and Senate races, primarily attacking Republicans who have voted in favor of cuts to the program. The most frequently shown negative television ads mentioning Medicare over the past week (Source: Campaign Media Analysis Group at Kantar Media) (A13)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1272 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Obama-Ryan Battle Intensifies Over Medicare Savings
BYLINE: By ROBERT PEAR
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 876 words
WASHINGTON -- Representative Paul D. Ryan's budget blueprint assumes the same amount of Medicare savings as President Obama's health care law, even though Mitt Romney and Mr. Ryan have said those cuts would be devastating to millions of older Americans on Medicare.As the partisan brawl over Medicare continued on Tuesday and threatened to become the focus of the race, the Obama campaign said that Mr. Ryan's budget plan -- broadly endorsed by Mr. Romney -- ''would end Medicare as we know it'' and shift costs to beneficiaries.
The Republicans hit back on Tuesday with a television commercial asserting that the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan was better for older Americans.
''You paid into Medicare for years, every paycheck,'' the advertisement says. ''Now when you need it, Obama has cut $716 billion from Medicare. Why? To pay for Obamacare. So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you.''
Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, said, ''Mitt Romney's Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical.'' The savings, she said, ''do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.''
In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Mr. Ryan said he welcomed the back and forth.
''This is a debate we want to have,'' he said. ''We're the ones who are offering a plan to save Medicare, to protect Medicare, to strengthen Medicare.''
With 50 million beneficiaries, Medicare is a major concern for both parties. The current fight centers on changes in the program made in the new health law, the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010 without Republican votes.
Mr. Obama would use the savings to help offset the cost of covering the uninsured, as well as to improve the financial condition of the Medicare trust fund. Mr. Ryan says he would use the money to shore up Medicare and to help reduce budget deficits.
Republicans won control of the House in 2010 partly by arguing that Democrats had raided Medicare to pay for Mr. Obama's health care law. Democrats hope to deflect such attacks this year by pointing out that Mr. Ryan's budget plan, approved twice by the House, includes similar savings -- roughly $700 billion from 2013 to 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Those savings have a complicated history.
Mr. Ryan's budget plan was approved in March by the House Budget Committee, of which he is chairman. Before the vote, committee members discussed the budget plan and the Medicare provisions in detail.
Representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, Democrat of Pennsylvania, asked whether the savings in the Affordable Care Act -- ''sometimes referred to as cuts to Medicare'' -- were part of Mr. Ryan's budget.
Austin Smythe, the panel's Republican staff director, said: ''We assume those savings. We devote them to solvency of Medicare and to deficit reduction, instead of covering the expansions.''
At another point, Mr. Smythe said, ''We assume the repeal of all of the expansions in the Affordable Care Act.''
Those expansions, he said, include subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy private insurance. Democrats said that repeal of the new law would also wipe out new Medicare benefits, like additional coverage of prescription drugs and preventive services.
The House approved the Ryan budget plan on March 29 by a vote of 228 to 191, with all but 10 Republicans voting for it.
Mr. Romney has offered a Medicare proposal similar to Mr. Ryan's. But the Romney campaign said Tuesday that Mr. Romney would restore the money being squeezed out of Medicare by the 2010 health law.
''Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have always been fully committed to repealing Obamacare, ending President Obama's $716 billion raid on Medicare, and tackling the serious fiscal challenges our country faces,'' said Lanhee Chen, the policy director for the Romney campaign. ''A Romney-Ryan administration will restore the funding to Medicare.''
The Ryan plan, like any budget resolution, specifies levels of spending, savings and revenues, based on certain policy assumptions. But, as Mr. Smythe pointed out, ''the committees of jurisdiction determine the details'' in separate legislation.
Mr. Ryan and Mr. Obama would impose similar overall constraints on Medicare spending, stipulating that average spending per beneficiary should not grow faster than the economy, measured by the per capita output of goods and services, plus one-half of one percentage point.
However, they would achieve the goal in different ways.
Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney would limit the government's current open-ended financial commitment to Medicare. The government would contribute a fixed amount of money on behalf of each beneficiary, and future beneficiaries could use the money to buy private insurance or to help pay for coverage under the traditional Medicare program.
The new health care law, by contrast, will reduce projected Medicare payments to health maintenance organizations, hospitals and many other health care providers. As a backstop, to ensure savings, the law creates a Medicare cost control board. Cuts recommended by the board would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them.
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would abolish the panel, which they describe as a tool for rationing health care.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/health/policy/battle-over-medicare-savings-intensifies-between-obama-and-paul-ryan.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Representative Paul D. Ryan, at a campaign stop Tuesday in Colorado, says Medicare is ''a debate we want to have.'' (PHOTOGRAPH BY EVAN SEMON/REUTERS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1273 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
On Medicare, Obama Plays Offense
BYLINE: HELENE COOPER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 376 words
HIGHLIGHT: The president, aides said, will use the last day of a three-day bus tour of Iowa to take on Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul D. Ryan, over the health care program for older Americans.
DUBUQUE, Iowa - With Mitt Romney on the attack over Medicare, President Obama entered the fight on Wednesday, catapulting the popular entitlements program to the top of the presidential campaign.
The president, his aides said, will use the last day of his three-day bus tour of Iowa Wednesday to go on the offense against Mr. Romney and his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin. Mr. Obama "will lay out the choice between his plan and the Romney-Ryan plan to end Medicare as we know it," Jen Psaki, a campaign spokeswoman, told reporters while traveling to Dubuque.
Mr. Ryan wrote two budgets approved by the House that would alter the Medicare program for future retirees.
That Mr. Obama would personally join the melee was a foregone conclusion when Mr. Romney picked Mr. Ryan as his running mate, ensuring that Democrats would try to take advantage of an issue that has long been viewed as a political vulnerability for Republicans.
In recent days, Mr. Romney has been trying to turn that vulnerability into an asset. The Republicans released a television commercial on Tuesday asserting that the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan was better for older Americans. "Obama has cut $716 billion from Medicare. Why? To pay for 'Obamacare.' So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you," the ad says.
What the ad doesn't say is that the $716 billion in cuts don't affect the benefits that seniors are guaranteed under the program.
Mr. Obama will be making that clear on Wednesday, aides said. The Republican proposals, Ms. Psaki said, would leave new retirees "with nothing but a voucher in place of the guaranteed benefits they rely on today." Actually, the newest iteration of Mr. Ryan's plan would leave seniors the choice of staying in the traditional program or getting a subsidy to buy private insurance.
Mr. Obama will be joined by Michelle Obama, the first lady, at two campaign stops Wednesday before heading back to Washington.
Obama Takes Aim at Ryan in Iowa
Who Wins and Who Loses if Bachmann Runs in 2012?
Foreign Policy Looms Large as 2012 Election Issue
Senate Democrats Shift Strategy on Ryan
For Romney, a New Running Mate May Mean a New, Less Elliptical, Workout, Too
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1274 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
Veterinarian Surprises Florida's Stearns in Republican Primary
BYLINE: ASHLEY SOUTHALL
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 625 words
HIGHLIGHT: A huge cash advantage and a shift to the ideological right were not enough to protect Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida from anti-incumbent sentiment. He lost his bid for a 13th term to a political newcomer, Ted Yoho.
A huge cash advantage and a shift to the ideological right were not enough to secure a primary victory for Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, who lost his bid for a 13th term to a Tea Party-backed veterinarian who has never held public office.
Mr. Stearns conceded the race on Wednesday to his rival, Ted Yoho, a self-described "Christian and conservative Republican," after it became clear that uncounted ballots would not be enough to turn the race in his favor.
"Based upon the results from last night, it would appear that there are not enough provisional ballots to make up the difference for me to win this primary election," Mr. Stearns said in a statement, according to the Tampa Bay Times. "Therefore, I am conceding the election to Ted Yoho, and I talked with him, wishing him the best in his effort to represent the wonderful people of north central Florida."
Complete but unofficial results from Tuesday's Republican primary in the Third Congressional District showed Mr. Stearns lagging behind Mr. Yoho 34.4 percent to 33.1 percent with 829 votes between them.
Mr. Yoho will face J.R. Gaillot, a political consultant who is running as a Democrat, in the general election.
Mr. Yoho, 57, had already claimed victory in the race on Tuesday night.
"I'm going to thank God," Mr. Yoho told the Tampa Bay Times. "I'm going to do a Tebow right here," he said, referring to the New York Jets quarterback who kneels on one knee and says a short prayer after scoring a touchdown.
Mr. Yoho's victory is a stunning upset for Mr. Stearns, who enjoyed a huge cash advantage and had not been considered endangered, even after redistricting forced him to run in a newly drawn Gainesville-area district that was more conservative.
Campaign finance reports show Mr. Stearns's campaign coffers stuffed with more than $2 million as of July 25, compared with the less than $130, 000 in Mr. Yoho's account at the same time. He also benefited from endorsements from Tea Party heartthrobs like Representatives Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and Allen West of Florida.
But he suffered some missteps in his campaign. In March, he was recorded at a town-hall-style meeting expressing doubts about the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate. He had focused much of his energy on another rival, State Senator Steve Olerich, instead of Mr. Yoho.
Mr. Stearns, 71, is the chairman of the investigations subpanel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In that capacity, he emerged as a top antagonist to Democrats and liberal groups as he steered investigations into the Obama administration's dealings with the failed solar energy company Solyndra and an inquiry into whether Planned Parenthood had used federal funds to provide abortions.
"I am disappointed that I won't be able to continue my investigations of the Obama administration such as the risky loan guarantee to Solyndra and holding Planned Parenthood accountable to the taxpayers," he said in his concession statement. "There is so much left to do in conducting oversight over the White House and the president's growing expansion of government into our lives."
Mr. Yoho fed off conservative activists' anti-incumbent sentiment, labeling his opponent a career politician. His first campaign ad featured actors dressed as politicians eating from a pig trough.
"Career politicians got us in this mess, but all they do is throw mud at each other," Mr. Yoho said in the ad. He promised to leave office after four terms.
Tea Party Hopes to Gain Larger Stage in Election With Romney's Pick
Bachmann Withdraws Swiss Citizenship
Florida's Stearns Keeps 'Birther' Doubts Alive
In Michigan, Romney Criticizes Unions
Influence of Palin and Tea Party Wanes in Early Contests
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1275 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
THE NO VOTES: 90 million;
That's how many Americans could vote in November but likely won't. They're busy, fed up, disillusioned. Lisa Goicochea, 19, is one of them.
BYLINE: Susan Page, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 1490 words
They could turn a too-close-to-call race into a landslide for President Obama -- but by definition they probably won't.
Call them the unlikely voters.
A nationwide USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll of people who are eligible to vote but aren't likely to do so finds that these stay-at-home Americans back Obama's re-election over Republican Mitt Romney by more than 2-1. Two-thirds of them say they are registered to vote. Eight in 10 say the government plays an important role in their lives.
Even so, they cite a range of reasons for declaring they won't vote or saying the odds are no better than 50-50 that they will: They're too busy. They aren't excited about either candidate. Their vote doesn't really matter. And nothing ever gets done, anyway.
"I don't think Obama helped us as much as he promised," says John Harrington, 52, a heavy-equipment operator from Farmington, Minn., who was among those surveyed. Since 2008, when Harrington voted for Obama, the financial downturn has forced him to sell his home in Arizona, move to Minnesota to be near a daughter and put him on the road to Nebraska, North Dakota and Iowa to find work.
His wife "loves" Obama and is sure to vote in November, but he's not certain whether he'll get there this time.
Even in 2008, when turnout was the highest in any presidential election since 1960, almost 80 million eligible citizens didn't vote. Curtis Gans, director of the non-partisan Center for the Study of the American Electorate, predicts that number will rise significantly this year. He says turnout could ebb to levels similar to 2000, when only 54.2% of those eligible to vote cast a ballot. That was up a bit from 1996, which had the lowest turnout since 1924.
This year, perhaps 90 million Americans who could vote won't. "The long-term trend tends to be awful," Gans says. "There's a lot of lack of trust in our leaders, a lack of positive feelings about political institutions, a lack of quality education for large segments of the public, a lack of civic education, the fragmenting effects of waves of communications technology, the cynicism of the coverage of politics -- I could go on with a long litany."
There's also the relentlessly negative tone of this year's campaign. The majority of TV ads don't try to persuade voters to support one candidate but rather to convince them not to back the other guy. Romney ads portray Obama as a failed president and a liar. Obama ads describe Romney as a heartless corporate raider whose firm has laid off American workers while he parked some of his fortune in a Swiss bank account. (Both candidates dispute the truthfulness of the other side's commercials.)
"I really don't know much about him, but from what I hear, he's all about putting taxes on the middle-class people, and I've heard that he's put his money in overseas accounts," Jamie Palmer, 35, a mother of three from St. Joseph, Mo., says of Romney, echoing accusations made in Democratic ads. "I think that's wrong."
So will she vote? Not a chance.
Palmer has never voted. "If a candidate I liked ran for the presidency, that had the right things to say, I'd go vote," she says. "But they say the same things; they make promises; they don't keep them. It's ridiculous. If I vote, nothing is going to come of it. It's just going to be like it is right now."
Who's the vice president?
Many of these unlikely voters are suspicious of and disconnected from politics. In the survey, six in 10 say they don't pay attention to politics because "nothing ever gets done"; 54% call politics "corrupt." Only 39% could correctly name the vice president, Joe Biden. (By contrast, a Pew Research Center poll in 2010 found 59% of American adults could name the vice president.)
On the other hand, they do see a difference between the two major parties: 53% disagree with the statement that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans." Obama scores a huge advantage among all the unlikely voters. By 43%-18%, they support the Democratic incumbent over his Republican challenger.
"There's this pool of people that Barack Obama doesn't even need to persuade," says David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, which took the survey. "All he needs to do is find them and identify them and get them to the polls. It's like a treasure chest. But the bad news is that the treasure chest is locked.
"You've got this overriding sense of bitterness and people who have been beaten down by the economy and the negativity and the lack of trust, and that's the key that Obama can't find. And he's running out of time."
Two-thirds of the unlikely voters say they voted four years ago, backing Obama by more than 2-1 over Republican John McCain. That helps explain why Obama's campaign is spending millions of dollars on the most elaborate field operation in U.S. political history, aimed at delivering both core supporters and reluctant ones to the polls.
Romney's pick of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate has opened a barrage of Democratic attacks on Ryan's proposal to move toward a voucher-like system in Medicare. Democratic strategists argue the issue could energize some of the president's discouraged backers, especially older ones.
Many of the nation's unlikely voters report hard times over the past four years. Only a third call their household finances good or excellent. Close to half say their annual household income is less than $60,000 a year. They tend to have lower levels of education than likely voters; nearly six in 10 have no more than a high school diploma.
The ranks of eligible non-voters lean toward the Democratic candidate in most though not all election years. The Democratic tilt among them is much greater in this survey than it was in 2004 or 2008 in the Gallup Poll just before Election Day. Then, Democrats had the advantage in voter enthusiasm -- an asset they've lost this year.
The process of registering to vote doesn't seem to present a major obstacle. Two-thirds say registering is easy and can be done pretty quickly; 16% say it takes too much time and is too complicated. The new wave of voter ID laws, which experts predict may reduce turnout a bit, doesn't seem to be an issue: 75% support requiring citizens to show a photo ID before voting.
The top reason given by unregistered voters for not having signed up is their busy lives. Among the top reasons given by registered voters for not bothering to go to the polls: not liking either candidate and not feeling that their vote matters.
Lisa Goicochea, 19, a student at LaGuardia Community College in New York City, favors Obama. "I like that he's been trying to go through with the Obamacare, which will benefit a lot of people," she says of the health care law. But she doesn't plan to vote and isn't interested in politics.
"Sometimes people actually enjoy talking about this, and I feel left out," she says. When it comes to the government, she adds a bit ruefully, "it does matter."
Drafting Hillary Clinton
Many unlikely voters feel some regret about not going to the polls. Half agree with the statement that not voting will bother them in November "because I will be letting other people elect the president." Four in 10 say it won't bother them "because my vote doesn't make any difference anyway."
What could persuade them to vote?
About one in 10 say they could be drawn by different candidates, by being convinced someone could fix the nation's problems, and by feeling better informed. Asked to name someone whose presidential bid would prompt them to vote, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was the most frequently cited, by 7%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who sought the GOP nomination, was next, named by 3%.
Annie Provencher, 60, a retired cashier from St. Pauls, N.C., voted for Bill Clinton and for Democrat John Kerry in 2004. She didn't vote in 2008, and she's not sure she will this time. She knows she doesn't like Obama but isn't sure about Romney. She plans to rely on the advice of her sister, who lives in Massachusetts, on how Romney did as governor.
If Hillary Clinton were running, she volunteers, "I'd be back there, the first one in line when the polls opened."
The survey identified one extremely persuasive argument. Among Obama supporters, 85% say they would go to the polls if they knew their vote would help swing a close election to the president; 70% of Romney supporters say the same for their candidate.
Given the potential closeness of this election, this might turn out to be the case.
---
44% like John Harrington, center, of Minneapolis voted in 2008 for President Obama.
19% like Jamie Palmer, center, of St. Joseph, Mo., said "nothing" could persuade them to vote in November.
12% like Cassi Sullivan of Auburn, N.Y., said they weren't likely to vote because "I don't like either candidate."
7% like Annie Provencher of St. Pauls, N.C., said they would vote if Hillary Clinton were running and they could vote for her.
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: COVER STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1276 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 15, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Contest rhetoric turning uglier
BYLINE: Philip Rucker;Amy Gardner
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1224 words
CHILLICOTHE, Ohio - Mitt Romney lashed out at President Obama with some of the harshest rhetoric of his campaign at a Tuesday night rally here, accusing Obama of leveling "wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency."
The already divisive presidential contest took on an even uglier tone after Romney seized on the latest campaign-trail skirmish - a comment at a Virginia rally by Vice President Biden that Romney's plans to loosen Wall Street regulations would "put y'all back in chains" - to go after his opponents.
"This is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like. President Obama knows better, promised better, and America deserves better," Romney told a roaring crowd of about 5,000 supporters in Chillicothe. "His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51 percent of the pieces. If an American president wins that way, we all lose."
Romney added, "Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."
Throughout the summer, Romney has taken umbrage at the tone of the Democratic advertising barrage, but this week he ratcheted up his criticism. He and his advisers wrote much of the speech Tuesday on his campaign bus riding between stops in Ohio.
His campaign is also airing negative television advertisements. The latest, released Tuesday, accuses Obama of diverting more than $700 billion from Medicare to pay for his health-care overhaul.
"Governor Romney's comments tonight seemed unhinged, and particularly strange coming at a time when he's pouring tens of millions of dollars into negative ads that are demonstrably false," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.
Romney and his advisers have been using increasingly hot language to charge that the president has abandoned his 2008 themes of hope and change. But they became particularly incensed by an ad from Priorities USA, a pro-Obama super PAC, that suggests Romney is to blame for the death of a woman whose husband lost his job and health insurance after Bain Capital, a firm Romney co-founded, took over the steel mill where he worked.Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), an intellectual leader of the conservative movement, as his running mate was expected to crystallize the policy differences between the Democratic and Republican tickets and elevate the conversation to a substantive debate about the federal debt and entitlement programs.
But the high-minded campaign has not come to be. Four days in, Romney's campaign accused Biden of alluding to slavery, Obama joked about the time Romney drove his station wagon with the family dog on the roof, and Romney called the president "intellectually exhausted."
And the candidates have yet to enter the post-Labor Day sprint, when things normally get tough.
Since Ryan's selection, Democrats have celebrated the chance to use his controversial budget plan to alter the Medicare program to hammer the newly minted Republican ticket.
The Romney campaign launched a preemptive strike on Tuesday to embrace Ryan's idea and say that it is Obama who is "actually damaging Medicare for current seniors."
In a new television ad and in remarks delivered across the critical battleground state of Ohio, Romney accused Obama of raiding $716 billion from Medicare to pay for his health-care overhaul.
"He is taking your money to finance his risky and unproven takeover of the health-care system," Romney said in Chillicothe. "He is putting Medicare at greater risk. He is putting health care at greater risk. He is putting your jobs at greater risk. We will not let Obamacare happen."
Romney's advisers foreshadowed more efforts in the days ahead to define the Medicare debate on their terms. The campaign is trying to show voters that it will not shrink from Obama, even on politically treacherous terrain - including Medicare.
"Stay tuned. There's a lot more to be had here," Ed Gillespie, a senior Romney adviser, said in an interview. "We feel like this is a great debate, that the president is incredibly vulnerable here. . . . We have a plan to save it for future generations, which they don't have."
However, the move carries significant risk, particularly in Florida and here in Ohio, critical swing states that have many seniors - although it may be the only way to cushion Romney from the potential political fallout of Ryan's budget proposal.
"You have to reform it for the younger generation in order to make the commitment stick for the current generation," Ryan said on Fox News Channel. "President Obama is actually damaging Medicare for current seniors. It's irrefutable. And that's why I think this is a debate we want to have, and that's a debate we're going to win."
The Obama campaign accused Romney of hypocrisy, noting that the Republican supports Ryan's budget, which includes Obama's $716 billion in baseline Medicare cuts.
The Obama campaign issued a memo Tuesday about the dim view many Floridians hold of Romney's and Ryan's statements on Medicare. Citing numerous recent polls and newspaper articles in Florida, the memo made the case that Romney's selection of Ryan as his running mate will be a "game changer" in Florida.
"They're spending millions of dollars on a lie to try to distract from the Ryan budget because they know it's absolutely devastating for them with voters of all ages," said Stephanie Cutter, a top Obama aide. "Unfortunately, the fact that both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher and raise costs for seniors by up to $6,000 blunts everything else in this conversation."
The Medicare push came on a day on when Obama and Romney also traded blows over energy policy: the president promoting new homegrown sources such as wind to replace imported oil, and his GOP challenger journeying to coal country to accuse Obama of destroying the coal industry.
Romney has long assailed Obama for imposing regulations that he says have stymied business for producers of more traditional energy sources while favoring elusive alternative energies.
Yet on day two of his three-day campaign across an Iowa landscape where wind turbines are nearly as common as cornfields, Obama pounded Romney and pushed Congress to extend tax credits for the wind-energy industry - an effort Republicans oppose.
In Iowa alone, the industry employs more than 7,000 people, according to the Obama campaign; nationwide, that figure is 75,000. Obama has said that 37,000 jobs nationally would be at risk if the wind-tax credit is not extended.
Romney, the president said, has called new energy sources "imaginary" and Ryan has called them a "fad."
"During a speech a few months ago, Governor Romney even explained his energy policy this way: 'You can't drive a car with a windmill on it,' " Obama said. "I wonder if he actually tried that. That's something I would have liked to see."
Then, Obama added: "I don't know if he's actually tried that. I know he's had other things on his car." It was a rare reference by Obama to Romney having once placed his dog Seamus in a crate mounted to the roof of his station wagon during a family vacation.
ruckerp@washpost.com
gardnera@washpost.com
Gardner reported from Iowa. Rosalind S. Helderman in Washington and Felicia Sonmez in Colorado contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1277 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 15, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Can Romney become more likable?
BYLINE: Rosalind S. Helderman
SECTION: A section; Pg. A06
LENGTH: 877 words
Four years ago, Manassas business coach Charles Bonuccelli voted for Mitt Romney over Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the Republican presidential primary. And for months, he has planned on voting for Romney again this year in November.
But in an interview late last week, he fretted that he still didn't feel like he really knew the former Massachusetts governor.
"It's not that I have an unfavorable impression of him. It's that I have no impression of him," he said. "You're always kind of wondering, behind the facade, what are we going to get?"
The next day, he figured it out.
"This is a man who is to be taken at his word," Bonuccelli said this week, after learning that Romney had chosen as his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), a man known for his laser focus on shrinking the government.
"The thing was that we didn't understand who this guy [Romney] was - was he serious about these things? It was a confirmation that he is serious," he added.
Bonuccelli was one of a number of voters interviewed over eggs and coffee at a Chamber of Commerce networking breakfast in Prince William County, a swing county in a swing state, the day before Romney chose Ryan.
Some in the crowd of striving entrepreneurs said they planned to vote for Romney in November, convinced that their companies won't thrive until President Obama leaves office. But they also revealed that they weren't exactly inspired by the candidate.
In the weeks leading up to his choice of Ryan, the share of voters holding a positive opinion of Romney stalled. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week, 40 percent of voters said they viewed him positively, a figure virtually unchanged since May, when he appeared to be narrowing a persistent gap with Obama on the measure. The percentage viewing him unfavorably rose from 45 percent to 49 percent between May and August.
The Romney campaign has largely dismissed such polling results as irrelevant in a contest likely to be driven by the economy. But historically, personal appeal has been closely linked to success in presidential elections.
Choosing Ryan may have been an attempt, some analysts have said, to shift those largely static numbers in Romney's favor. And it lets the campaign take a new run at eroding Obama's personal popularity by trying to contrast the wonky campaign of ideas they say Ryan represents and the small-minded insult war that they charge is the president's aim.
"What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?" begins a new ad that the Romney team was highlighting Tuesday. The spot refers to an ad run by an independent pro-Obama super PAC; in that ad, a man who lost his health insurance when he was laid off from a steel mill owned by Romney's Bain Capital suggests that the Republican shares the blame for his wife's death from cancer.
"Doesn't America deserve better than a president who will say or do anything to stay in power?" the Romney ad says.
Last week, Mike Cunningham, 50, an account manager for a drug and alcohol testing company in Prince William, said he'd already concluded that Obama has socialist tendencies that are "absolutely destroying the economy."
But he said he wanted to hear more from Romney, the man he would vote to put in the White House in Obama's place.
"We've already lived with four years of Obama. We already know what he's about," Cunningham said. "Romney keeps saying he's from the business world. So now he needs to be more specific about what he can do, as a businessman, to turn around the economy."
Several days later, he said that picking Ryan helped.
"They're going to have to make some tough, tough cuts," Cunningham said. "There are some sacred cows out there, but everything needs to be on the table, and everyone will have to share in it."
He said Medicare changes could be frightening, but "I do believe that most people will be okay with it."
Prince William is a critical bellwether in Virginia, a state that could be important to the outcome of the presidential election. Voters in the quickly growing exurban county have backed Virginia's winning candidate in every state and federal election of the past decade.Whether Romney supporters in Prince William can be converted to Romney proselytizers could make a difference.
And while Ryan appears to have excited active conservatives, it's not clear if he will be the game-changing pick Romney had sought.
Polls show that Ryan was unknown to many Americans before his selection, meaning that the image both parties craft of him in the coming weeks could be key.
Before Ryan was chosen, Jim Aram, 39, an executive at a chain of physical therapy clinics, said he planned to vote for Romney but felt largely "indifferent" toward him.
And after?
"Honestly, not much has changed," Aram said. "We were visiting friends over the weekend, and I woke up and heard the announcement, and I said, 'I don't remember that guy.' "
"Then I saw his face and I said, 'Wasn't he on the cover of Men's Health magazine?' "
Not quite. While Ryan is well-known as a fitness buff, it was Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) who was photographed with an open shirt on the magazine's cover.
heldermanr@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1278 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 15, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 150 words
Ad vs. ad
A new TV ad from Mitt Romney's campaign hits President Obama for a super PAC ad that suggests Romney is responsible for the death of a woman.
"What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use a tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?" the narrator asks as the YouTube version of the Priorities USA Action ad is shown.
The ad then flashes quotes from newspapers about the ad in question - words like "disgusting" and "scraping bottom."
Obama's campaign is not running the ad; a super PAC it cannot coordinate with is. Obama's campaign has previously focused on Joe Soptic, a steelworker whose wife died of cancer after he was laid off at a steel plant taken over by Romney's Bain Capital. But the Romney ad leaves the impression that Obama's campaign ran the ad that is currently controversial.
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1279 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 15, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Medicare debate to be pivotal moment
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 1073 words
Mitt Romney is enjoying a burst of energy after adding Rep. Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket. He is drawing the biggest and most enthusiastic crowds of his campaign, the same way GOP nominee John McCain did four years ago after naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. Romney is getting what he hoped for when he passed over safer choices.
But he also has bought trouble, as is clear from Democrats' attacks on Ryan's far-reaching and controversial budget plan, which would, among other things, transform Medicare into a premium support program for younger people upon retirement.
Whether or not Romney wanted a debate about Medicare, an issue that long has favored Democrats, he has one. His campaign advisers recognize the dangers. From their perspective, it's better to have the discussion now than in October. They are trying to take this fight to the president in a way that no Republican nominee has done before.
On Tuesday, the Romney campaign began its counterattack on the Medicare issue even before President Obama's campaign could air its first ad on the subject. Romney's ad charges that Obama cut more than $700 billion from Medicare to help finance his controversial health-care overhaul.
"We're the ones who are offering a plan to save Medicare, to protect Medicare, to strengthen Medicare," Ryan (Wis.) told Brit Hume of Fox News Channel. "President Obama is actually damaging Medicare for current seniors. It's irrefutable. And that's why I think this is a debate we want to have, and that's a debate we're going to win."
Romney is dealing with two problems: the details of Ryan's budget blueprint, and questions about the differences between the running mates' fiscal and Medicare plans.
Romney and his advisers insist that he will run on his plan, not Ryan's. In part, they've done that to remind people that the tail will not wag the dog, that the running mate will not overshadow the nominee. Any presidential candidate would say the same thing.
But keeping Ryan's plan out of the debate is virtually impossible. Romney embraced the conceptual framework of the congressman's blueprint long before he selected Ryan as his running mate. At the time, he could preserve some space to say he wouldn't follow every detail of Ryan's plan.
That was before he put on the ticket a politician described as the intellectual leader of the GOP, who has been in the thick of the battle over how to transform government through tax cuts, budget reductions and entitlement reform. Pick Ryan, and you get his blueprint as your own.
On the big issues, Romney and Ryan are in agreement. They favor big tax cuts from which the wealthiest Americans would benefit significantly. They have not fully explained how they would offset that lost revenue. They support reductions in domestic discretionary spending. Both want changes that would convert Medicare into a premium support program for younger workers. Their priorities are the same. Romney hasn't said whether he has real differences with Ryan or mostly minor ones - on Medicare or anything else in the budget proposal. The last thing he wants is a Romney-Ryan debate, but if there are substantive differences, they ought to be highlighted and explained. One real difference is that Ryan accepts the cuts Obama made to Medicare as part of his budget. Romney would restore them but hasn't explained why he objects to what Ryan would do.
Romney hoped that the choice of Ryan would amplify his message that the status quo or even small changes aren't going to solve the country's fiscal problems. That is a big argument and a debate worth having. Right now, however, Romney is dealing with questions about whether Ryan's plan would hurt seniors, the middle class or the poor.
Democrats are seizing the moment. Obama is traveling across Iowa this week trying to tie Romney via Ryan to congressional Republicans, whose favorability rating is in the basement. Vice President Biden is attacking Ryan almost as if he were the nominee.
Obama campaign advisers are brushing aside any idea that there is daylight between Romney and Ryan and focusing on Ryan's budget for what is likely to be a campaign of negative ads. The Democrats are using August as they used July, to try to define the opposition before Romney - and now Ryan - can fully defend and define themselves. Romney's campaign advisers believe they have opportunities to win this debate. Obama's economic record remains the biggest threat to his reelection bid. He is vulnerable as well to the criticism that he is not offering real leadership on entitlement reform. The new Medicare ad seeks to exploit what the president did to Medicare to finance his health-care program and put Democrats on the defensive.
Ironically, Democrats cried foul over the new ad, saying Obama was cutting the rate of growth in the program, not reducing actual spending. That ignores the fact that, in the 1996 campaign, Democrats attacked Republicans for cutting Medicare spending when Republicans were reducing the rate of growth in the program.
The Republican National Convention will give Romney a chance to tie everything together: his biography presented in its most positive way; the policy differences with Obama outlined with clarity; the economic and fiscal arguments advanced with sharpness and elevation; and the Obama attacks rebutted cleanly. The campaign may look and feel different at that point.
But Romney and Ryan face the possibility that, before the convention, Obama and the Democrats will define Ryan's budget - and in particular his changes to Medicare - so negatively that the damage will be long-lasting. That's why Romney's campaign has moved quickly to blunt the Medicare attacks. But this fight is just starting, which is what makes these weeks a defining moment in the campaign.
balzd@washpost.com
Read previous Take columns at washingtonpost.com/politics.
Name Blurb Flag true Variable Size Panel Image Panel Image Background Image
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1280 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 15, 2012 Wednesday 2:55 PM EST
Obama makes Seamus the dog joke about Romney;
Americans For Prosperity launches a new ad against Obama, part of a $25 million buy against the president.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 576 words
Americans For Prosperity launches a new ad against President Obama, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) attacks the president on energy and the Senate ad war in Missouri is in full swing.
Make sure to sign up to receive "Afternoon Fix" every day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
What's Chris Christie's next political move?
Romney turns Medicare attack against Obama in new ad
Primary day: Five things you need to know in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota and Wisconsin
Biden: Romney's approach to financial regulation will 'put y'all back in chains'
Your RNC keynote speaker: Chris Christie's best moments
Paul Ryan and the Catholic vote - in 1 chart and 1 map
GOP Senate candidates mixed on inviting Ryan to campaign for them
New Obama ad: 'Get real, Mitt'
Why the Wisconsin Senate primary matters
Chris Christie to deliver keynote address at Republican convention
What's the matter with Iowa?
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* Americans For Prosperity, a grouped backed by the Koch Brothers, launched the second phase of a $25 million buy against President Obama with a new 60-second TV ad that argues the president has not earned reelection. The current buy is the first instance in which the conservative group is running express advocacy ads.
* In his second solo campaign appearance, presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) attacked Obama's energy policy during a stop in Colorado. Obama "has done all that he can to make it harder for us to use our own energy," Ryan said. Ryan is also scheduled to attend a private event in Las Vegas this evening that reportedly includes billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The event is not a fundraiser.
* The general election ad war in the Missouri Senate race is in full swing. The latest: Rep. Todd Akin (R) is up with his first negative ad, a spot which ties Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) to Obama's health care law and hitting her late taxes on a private plane she co-owned. McCaskill's newest ad hits Akin for comparing federal student loans to "the stage III cancer of socialism."
* A Democratic poll of the New Mexico Senate race conducted Aug. 5-7 for the League of Conservation Voters and other environmental groups shows Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) leading former Republican congresswoman Heather Wilson 50 percent to 41 percent.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* At a campaign stop in Iowa, Obama poked fun at Romney by mentioning Seamus the dog, the Irish Setter the presumptive GOP presidential nominee put on the roof of his car during family trips years ago. "You can't drive a car with a windmill on it," Obama said. "I don't know if he's [Romney] actually tried that. I know he's had other things on his car."
* Ryan will speak at the mid-September Values Voter Summit, a gathering of social conservative activists in Washington, D.C.
* Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) announced his resignation from the House effective at midnight on Wednesday. Cardoza had previously announced that he was not running for reelection. There will not be a special election to fill the remainder of his term in the 18th District.
* The target of Indiana Democratic gubernatorial nominee John Gregg's new TV ad is, well, political ads, which he says he thinks "are pretty silly."
THE FIX MIX:
The Internet. 1995 style.
With Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1281 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 15, 2012 Wednesday 3:42 AM EST
Romney turns Medicare attack against Obama in new ad;
In a new ad, Romney launches a Medicare attack against Obama.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 243 words
As Democrats move to tie Mitt Romney to his newly minted running mate's proposal to revamp Medicare as a voucher system for Americans currently under 55, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has released a new TV ad that goes on offense against Obama on Medicare.
"Obama has cut $716 billion dollars from Medicare," says the narrator of the Romney campaign ad. "Why? To pay for Obamacare."
The assertion is based on a Congressional Budget Office estimate from July that spending for Medicare "would increase by an estimated $716 billion" over the next nine years under an effort to repeal the federal health-care law.
The Obama campaign responded by calling the Romney attack ad hypocritical.
"Mitt Romney's ad is dishonest and hypocritical. The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit, and Mitt Romney embraced the very same savings when he promised he'd sign Paul Ryan's budget," said Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith in response to the ad. "Because the President is eliminating subsidies to insurance companies and cutting waste and fraud, we've extended the life of Medicare by eight years."
The Romney campaign's engagement with the Medicare issue and the Obama campaign's effort to keep the debate active illustrates how the addition of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) - who is often associated with his own controversial Medicare plan - to the ticket has swiftly elevated the debate over Medicare to the forefront of the campaign.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1282 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
Met 2 Edition
Contest rhetoric turning uglier
BYLINE: Philip Rucker;Amy Gardner
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1220 words
DATELINE: CHILLICOTHE, OHIO
CHILLICOTHE, Ohio - Mitt Romney lashed out at President Obama with some of the harshest rhetoric of his campaign at a Tuesday night rally here, accusing Obama of leveling "wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency."
The already divisive presidential contest took on an even uglier tone after Romney seized on the latest campaign-trail skirmish - a comment at a Virginia rally by Vice President Biden that Romney's plans to loosen Wall Street regulations would "put y'all back in chains" - to go after his opponents.
"This is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like. President Obama knows better, promised better, and America deserves better," Romney told a roaring crowd of about 5,000 supporters in Chillicothe. "His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51 percent of the pieces. If an American president wins that way, we all lose."
Romney added, "Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America."
Throughout the summer, Romney has taken umbrage at the tone of the Democratic advertising barrage, but this week he ratcheted up his criticism. He and his advisers wrote much of the speech Tuesday on his campaign bus riding between stops in Ohio.
His campaign is also airing negative television advertisements. The latest, released Tuesday, accuses Obama of diverting more than $700 billion from Medicare to pay for his health-care overhaul.
"Governor Romney's comments tonight seemed unhinged, and particularly strange coming at a time when he's pouring tens of millions of dollars into negative ads that are demonstrably false," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement.
Romney and his advisers have been using increasingly hot language to charge that the president has abandoned his 2008 themes of hope and change. But they became particularly incensedby an ad from Priorities USA, a pro-Obama super PAC, that suggests Romney is to blame for the death of a woman whose husband lost his job and health insurance after Bain Capital, a firm Romney co-founded, took over the steel mill where he worked.
Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), an intellectual leader of the conservative movement, as his running mate was expected to crystallize the policy differences between the Democratic and Republican tickets and elevate the conversation to a substantive debate about the federal debt and entitlement programs.
But the high-minded campaign has not come to be. Four days in, Romney's campaign accused Biden of alluding to slavery, Obama joked about the time Romney drove his station wagon with the family dog on the roof, and Romney called the president "intellectually exhausted."
And the candidates have yet to enter the post-Labor Day sprint, when things normally get tough.
Since Ryan's selection, Democrats have celebrated the chance to use his controversial budget plan to alter the Medicare program to hammer the newly minted Republican ticket.
The Romney campaign launched a preemptive strike on Tuesday to embrace Ryan's idea and say that it is Obama who is "actually damaging Medicare for current seniors."
In a new television ad and in remarks delivered across the critical battleground state of Ohio, Romney accused Obama of raiding $716 billion from Medicare to pay for his health-care overhaul.
"He is taking your money to finance his risky and unproven takeover of the health-care system," Romney said in Chillicothe. "He is putting Medicare at greater risk. He is putting health care at greater risk. He is putting your jobs at greater risk. We will not let Obamacare happen."
Romney's advisers foreshadowed more efforts in the days ahead to define the Medicare debate on their terms. The campaign is trying to show voters that it will not shrink from Obama, even on politically treacherous terrain - including Medicare.
"Stay tuned. There's a lot more to be had here," Ed Gillespie, a senior Romney adviser, said in an interview. "We feel like this is a great debate, that the president is incredibly vulnerable here. . . . We have a plan to save it for future generations, which they don't have."
However, the move carries significant risk, particularly in Florida and here in Ohio, critical swing states that have many seniors - although it may be the only way to cushion Romney from the potential political fallout of Ryan's budget proposal.
"You have to reform it for the younger generation in order to make the commitment stick for the current generation," Ryan said on Fox News Channel. "President Obama is actually damaging Medicare for current seniors. It's irrefutable. And that's why I think this is a debate we want to have, and that's a debate we're going to win."
The Obama campaign accused Romney of hypocrisy, noting that the Republican supports Ryan's budget, which includes Obama's $716 billion in baseline Medicare cuts.
The Obama campaign issued a memo Tuesday about the dim view many Floridians hold of Romney's and Ryan's statements on Medicare. Citing numerous recent polls and newspaper articles in Florida, the memo made the case that Romney's selection of Ryan as his running mate will be a "game changer" in Florida.
"They're spending millions of dollars on a lie to try to distract from the Ryan budget because they know it's absolutely devastating for them with voters of all ages," said Stephanie Cutter, a top Obama aide. "Unfortunately, the fact that both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to turn Medicare into a voucher and raise costs for seniors by up to $6,000 blunts everything else in this conversation."
The Medicare push came on a day on when Obama and Romney also traded blows over energy policy: the president promoting new homegrown sources such as wind to replace imported oil, and his GOP challenger journeying to coal country to accuse Obama of destroying the coal industry.
Romney has long assailed Obama for imposing regulations that he says have stymied business for producers of more traditional energy sources while favoring elusive alternative energies.
Yet on day two of his three-day campaign across an Iowa landscape where wind turbines are nearly as common as cornfields, Obama pounded Romney and pushed Congress to extend tax credits for the wind-energy industry - an effort Republicans oppose.
In Iowa alone, the industry employs more than 7,000 people, according to the Obama campaign; nationwide, that figure is 75,000. Obama has said that 37,000 jobs nationally would be at risk if the wind-tax credit is not extended.
Romney, the president said, has called new energy sources "imaginary" and Ryan has called them a "fad."
"During a speech a few months ago, Governor Romney even explained his energy policy this way: 'You can't drive a car with a windmill on it,' " Obama said. "I wonder if he actually tried that. That's something I would have liked to see."
Then, Obama added: "I don't know if he's actually tried that. I know he's had other things on his car." It was a rare reference by Obama to Romney having once placed his dog Seamus in a crate mounted to the roof of his station wagon during a family vacation.
ruckerp@washpost.com
gardnera@washpost.com
Gardner reported from Iowa. Rosalind S. Helderman in Washington and Felicia Sonmez in Colorado contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1283 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
Met 2 Edition
Can Romney become more likable?
BYLINE: Rosalind S. Helderman
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A06
LENGTH: 865 words
Four years ago, Manassas business coach Charles Bonuccelli voted for Mitt Romneyover Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the Republican presidential primary.
And for months, he has planned on voting for Romney again this year in November.
But in an interview late last week, he fretted that he still didn't feel like he really knew the former Massachusetts governor.
"It's not that I have an unfavorable impression of him. It's that I have no impression of him," he said. "You're always kind of wondering, behind the facade, what are we going to get?"
The next day, he figured it out.
"This is a man who is to be taken at his word," Bonuccelli said this week, after learning that Romney had chosen as his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan(Wis.), a man known for his laser focus on shrinking the government.
"The thing was that we didn't understand who this guy [Romney] was - was he serious about these things? It was a confirmation that he is serious," he added.
Bonuccelli was one of a number of voters interviewed over eggs and coffee at a Chamber of Commerce networking breakfast in Prince William County, a swing county in a swing state, the day before Romney chose Ryan.
Some in the crowd of striving entrepreneurs said they planned to vote for Romney in November, convinced that their companies won't thrive until President Obama leaves office.
But they also revealed that they weren't exactly inspired by the candidate.
In the weeks leading up to his choice of Ryan, the share of voters holding a positive opinion of Romney stalled. In a Washington Post-ABC News pollreleased last week, 40 percent of voters said they viewed him positively, a figure virtually unchanged since May, when he appeared to be narrowing a persistent gap with Obama on the measure. The percentage viewing him unfavorably rose from 45 percent to 49 percent between May and August.
The Romney campaign has largely dismissed such polling results as irrelevant in a contest likely to be driven by the economy. But historically, personal appeal has been closely linked to success in presidential elections.
Choosing Ryan may have been an attempt, some analysts have said, to shift those largely static numbers in Romney's favor. And it lets the campaign take a new run at eroding Obama's personal popularity by trying to contrast the wonky campaign of ideas they say Ryan represents and the small-minded insult war that they charge is the president's aim.
"What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?" begins a new adthat the Romney team was highlighting Tuesday.
The spot refers to an ad run by an independent pro-Obama super PAC; in that ad, a man who lost his health insurance when he was laid off from a steel mill owned by Romney's Bain Capital suggests that the Republican shares the blame for his wife's death from cancer.
"Doesn't America deserve better than a president who will say or do anything to stay in power?" the Romney ad says.
Last week, Mike Cunningham, 50, an account manager for a drug and alcohol testing company in Prince William, said he'd already concluded that Obama has socialist tendencies that are "absolutely destroying the economy."
But he said he wanted to hear more from Romney, the man he would vote to put in the White House in Obama's place.
"We've already lived with four years of Obama. We already know what he's about," Cunningham said. "Romney keeps saying he's from the business world. So now he needs to be more specific about what he can do, as a businessman, to turn around the economy."
Several days later, he said that picking Ryan helped.
"They're going to have to make some tough, tough cuts," Cunningham said. "There are some sacred cows out there, but everything needs to be on the table, and everyone will have to share in it."
He said Medicare changes could be frightening, but "I do believe that most people will be okay with it."
Prince William is a critical bellwether in Virginia, a state that could be important to the outcome of the presidential election. Voters in the quickly growing exurban county have backed Virginia's winning candidate in every state and federal election of the past decade.
Whether Romney supporters in Prince William can be converted to Romney proselytizers could make a difference.
And while Ryan appears to have excited active conservatives, it's not clear if he will be the game-changing pick Romney had sought.
Polls show that Ryan was unknownto many Americans before his selection, meaning that the image both parties craft of him in the coming weeks could be key.
Before Ryan was chosen, Jim Aram, 39, an executive at a chain of physical therapy clinics, said he planned to vote for Romney but felt largely "indifferent" toward him.
And after?
"Honestly, not much has changed," Aram said. "We were visiting friends over the weekend, and I woke up and heard the announcement, and I said, 'I don't remember that guy.' "
"Then I saw his face and I said, 'Wasn't he on the cover of Men's Health magazine?' "
Not quite. While Ryan is well-known as a fitness buff, it was Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) who was photographed with an open shirt on the magazine's cover.
heldermanr@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1284 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
Met 2 Edition
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 139 words
Ad vs. ad
A new TV ad from Mitt Romney's campaign hits President Obama for a super PAC ad that suggests Romney is responsible for the death of a woman.
"What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use a tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?" the narrator asks as the YouTube version of the Priorities USA Action ad is shown.
The ad then flashes quotes from newspapers about the ad in question - words like "disgusting" and "scraping bottom."
Obama's campaign is not running the ad; a super PAC it cannot coordinate with is. Obama's campaign has previously focused on Joe Soptic, a steelworker whose wife died of cancer after he was laid off at a steel plant taken over by Romney's Bain Capital. But the Romney ad leaves the impression that Obama's campaign ran the ad that is currently controversial.
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1285 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 15, 2012 Wednesday
Met 2 Edition
Medicare debate to be pivotal moment
BYLINE: Dan Balz
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 1077 words
Mitt Romney is enjoying a burst of energy after adding Rep. Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket. He is drawing the biggest and most enthusiastic crowds of his campaign, the same way GOP nominee John McCain did four years ago after naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. Romney is getting what he hoped for when he passed over safer choices.
But he also has bought trouble, as is clear from Democrats' attacks on Ryan's far-reaching and controversial budget plan, which would, among other things, transform Medicare into a premium support program for younger people upon retirement.
Whether or not Romney wanted a debate about Medicare, an issue that long has favored Democrats, he has one. His campaign advisers recognize the dangers. From their perspective, it's better to have the discussion now than in October. They are trying to take this fight to the president in a way that no Republican nominee has done before.
On Tuesday, the Romney campaign began its counterattack on the Medicare issue even before President Obama's campaign could air its first ad on the subject. Romney's ad charges that Obama cut more than $700 billion from Medicare to help finance his controversial health-care overhaul.
"We're the ones who are offering a plan to save Medicare, to protect Medicare, to strengthen Medicare," Ryan (Wis.) told Brit Hume of Fox News Channel. "President Obama is actually damaging Medicare for current seniors. It's irrefutable. And that's why I think this is a debate we want to have, and that's a debate we're going to win."
Romney is dealing with two problems: the details of Ryan's budget blueprint, and questions about the differences between the running mates' fiscal and Medicare plans.
Romney and his advisers insist that he will run on his plan, not Ryan's. In part, they've done that to remind people that the tail will not wag the dog, that the running mate will not overshadow the nominee. Any presidential candidate would say the same thing.
But keeping Ryan's plan out of the debate is virtually impossible. Romney embraced the conceptual framework of the congressman's blueprint long before he selected Ryan as his running mate. At the time, he could preserve some space to say he wouldn't follow every detail of Ryan's plan.
That was before he put on the ticket a politician described as the intellectual leader of the GOP, who has been in the thick of the battle over how to transform government through tax cuts, budget reductions and entitlement reform. Pick Ryan, and you get his blueprint as your own.
On the big issues, Romney and Ryan are in agreement. They favor big tax cuts from which the wealthiest Americans would benefit significantly. They have not fully explained how they would offset that lost revenue. They support reductions in domestic discretionary spending. Both want changes that would convert Medicare into a premium support program for younger workers. Their priorities are the same.
Romney hasn't said whether he has real differences with Ryan or mostly minor ones - on Medicare or anything else in the budget proposal. The last thing he wants is a Romney-Ryan debate, but if there are substantive differences, they ought to be highlighted and explained. One real difference is that Ryan accepts the cuts Obama made to Medicare as part of his budget. Romney would restore them but hasn't explained why he objects to what Ryan would do.
Romney hoped that the choice of Ryan would amplify his message that the status quo or even small changes aren't going to solve the country's fiscal problems. That is a big argument and a debate worth having. Right now, however, Romney is dealing with questions about whether Ryan's plan would hurt seniors, the middle class or the poor.
Democrats are seizing the momenthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/dems-hit-romney-ryan-on-medicare-obama-in-iowa-blames-ryan-for-blocking-key-farm-bill-aid/2012/08/13/175adbb8-e5a4-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html. Obama is traveling across Iowa this week trying to tie Romney via Ryan to congressional Republicans, whose favorability rating is in the basement. Vice President Biden is attacking Ryan almost as if he were the nominee.
Obama campaign advisers are brushing aside any idea that there is daylight between Romney and Ryan and focusing on Ryan's budget for what is likely to be a campaign of negative ads. The Democrats are using August as they used July, to try to define the opposition before Romney - and now Ryan - can fully defend and define themselves.
Romney's campaign advisers believe they have opportunities to win this debate. Obama's economic record remains the biggest threat to his reelection bid. He is vulnerable as well to the criticism that he is not offering real leadership on entitlement reform. The new Medicare ad seeks to exploit what the president did to Medicare to finance his health-care program and put Democrats on the defensive.
Ironically, Democrats cried foul over the new ad, saying Obama was cutting the rate of growth in the program, not reducing actual spending. That ignores the fact that, in the 1996 campaign, Democrats attacked Republicans for cutting Medicare spending when Republicans were reducing the rate of growth in the program.
The Republican National Convention will give Romney a chance to tie everything together: his biography presented in its most positive way; the policy differences with Obama outlined with clarity; the economic and fiscal arguments advanced with sharpness and elevation; and the Obama attacks rebutted cleanly. The campaign may look and feel different at that point.
But Romney and Ryan face the possibility that, before the convention, Obama and the Democrats will define Ryan's budget - and in particular his changes to Medicare - so negatively that the damage will be long-lasting. That's why Romney's campaign has moved quickly to blunt the Medicare attacks. But this fight is just starting, which is what makes these weeks a defining moment in the campaign.
balzd@washpost.com
Read previous Take columns at washingtonpost.com/politics.
Name Blurb Flag true Variable Size Panel Image Panel Image Background Image
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1286 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 14, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Ryan Has Kept Close Ties to Donors on the Right
BYLINE: By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE; Griff Palmer contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 9
LENGTH: 1228 words
This month, as a handful of Republicans auditioned at town halls and on bus tours to be Mitt Romney's running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan joined a private conference call. For 20 minutes, he walked through his plan to cut government spending and bashed President Obama for weakening welfare work requirements.His audience: Several hundred field organizers for Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party-inspired group founded by the billionaire conservative philanthropists Charles and David Koch.
When Mr. Romney announced that Mr. Ryan would be his running mate, his campaign emphasized the congressman's detailed knowledge of the federal budget and his chemistry with Mr. Romney. Less well-known are Mr. Ryan's close ties to the donors and activists who have channeled Tea Party anger into a $400 million political machine, financed by a network of conservative and libertarian donors that now rivals, and occasionally challenges, the Republican establishment behind Mr. Romney.
Mr. Ryan is one of a very few elected officials who have attended the Kochs' biannual conferences, where wealthy donors sit in on seminars on runaway government spending and the myths of climate change.
He is on first-name terms with prominent libertarians in the financial world, including hedge fund billionaires like Cliff Asness and Paul Singer, and spent his formative years immersed in the Republican Party's supply-side wing, working for lawmakers and conservative policy advocates like Jack Kemp.
He has appeared for years at rallies, town hall meetings, and donor briefings for groups like the Club for Growth, which spends millions to defeat Republicans deemed squishy on taxes and spending, and Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots group focused on economic and budget issues that is now trying to channel Tea Party energy into a permanent electoral force. Its fourth chapter was founded in Mr. Ryan's home state, Wisconsin.
Now Mr. Ryan could provide Mr. Romney with a critical political and intellectual bridge to the rising conservative counterestablishment represented by the Kochs and their allies, who are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and deploy thousands of volunteers to defeat Mr. Obama. Should Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan win in November, a constituency that has for years fulminated against the failure of Republicans to live up to their own principles could soon have a close -- and powerful -- friend in the White House.
''There's three guys that we courted for president: Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Pence,'' said Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, a national advocacy group closely allied with the Tea Party, who worked alongside Mr. Ryan when both were staff aides on the House Budget Committee. ''Up until yesterday, there was a 100 percent commitment to fire Obama. There was not a lot of enthusiasm about Romney.'' Mr. Daniels is the governor of Indiana, and Mr. Pence is a congressman from Indiana.
Mr. Kibbe added, ''From a Tea Party perspective, the overwhelming response on all of our networks has been extremely positive.''
Mr. Ryan's ties to that world began with a job at Empower America, a group founded by Mr. Kemp that ran ''candidate schools'' for aspiring conservatives and advocated for a flat tax and lower spending. As a rank-and-file congressman during the presidency of George W. Bush, Mr. Ryan advocated for the privatization of Social Security, helping push the idea toward the Republican mainstream and cementing his reputation as a conservative intellectual.
Privately, Mr. Ryan would later say, he was also stewing over what he and other conservatives viewed as the Bush administration's fiscal profligacy and ideological drift, including the addition of a drug benefit to Medicare and, later, a bank bailout plan, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. (Mr. Ryan voted for both.)
That dissatisfaction was shared by the Kochs, who in the middle of the last decade began organizing conferences of like-minded donors and founded Americans for Prosperity.
Mr. Ryan, who became House budget chairman in 2006, began attending and speaking at Americans for Prosperity events. In 2008, the Wisconsin chapter gave Mr. Ryan its annual ''Defender of the American Dream'' award. Mr. Ryan also began attending the Kochs' annual donor seminars. Last spring, Mr. Ryan was a speaker at a ''Hands Off My Health Care'' rally organized by Tea Party leaders outside the Capitol, drawing enthusiastic applause.
In Congress, he emerged as a skeptic of mainstream climate change theory -- opposition to which has been a top priority of Koch-affiliated activists and research groups -- and a reliable vote against energy efficiency standards, including a House vote to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.
The relationship helped Mr. Ryan's campaign coffers as well as his career: the Koch Industries PAC has donated more than $100,000 to Mr. Ryan's campaigns and his leadership PAC, more than has any other corporate PAC, according to a New York Times analysis of campaign records.
Mr. Ryan has also developed relationships with other people in the Koch orbit, like Mr. Asness, a libertarian-minded financier known for his open letters blasting Mr. Obama, and Kenneth Griffin, a Chicago hedge-fund executive: wealthy donors whose taste for number-crunching and policy minutiae match Mr. Ryan's own.
Mr. Griffin and his wife, Anne, introduced Mr. Ryan to Chicago's deep-pocketed Republican donor circle -- he has raised more money there this campaign than any other city -- and promoted his budget proposals, including arranging a speech last year at the Economic Club of Chicago.
But it was Mr. Ryan's aggressive promotion of his budget plan that has cemented his place the counterestablishment's rising star. Mr. Ryan's plan, viewed warily in its early form by other Republican leaders on the Hill, became an organizing document for the Tea Party's Beltway wing, particularly the dozens of Tea Party-inspired freshman lawmakers who arrived on Capitol Hill after the 2010 elections. Many of them came to rely on Mr. Ryan for counsel on whether to accept budget compromises with Mr. Obama.
Outside political groups and research organizations praised Mr. Ryan's plan, one of the few comprehensive conservative budget proposals detailed enough to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, as rigorous and credible.
''Paul was one of the first guys that we looked at and said, 'Hey, that young guy could be the guy,' '' said Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity's president. ''And when he put out the budget and defended it, that's when they said, 'He could go all the way.' ''
Officials with several outside groups that had been skeptical of Mr. Romney in the past said that the selection of Mr. Ryan had assuaged some of their doubts.
More important, they said, Mr. Ryan would fire up their grass-roots members, some of whom had doubted Mr. Romney's commitment to cutting the size of government. Last week, before the announcement, Americans for Prosperity announced that it had begun its largest ever ad campaign against Mr. Obama, a $25 million broadside in 11 battleground states.
And on Monday, Romney officials said that the campaign had raised millions of dollars in the wake of Mr. Ryan's selection, not only from grass-roots small donors, but from the many big donors who rank among his fans.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/us/politics/paul-ryan-has-kept-close-ties-to-conservative-and-libertarian-donors.html
LOAD-DATE: August 14, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Representative Paul D. Ryan accepting an award in 2008 from the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party-inspired group founded by Charles and David Koch. (PHOTOGRAPH BY AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1287 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 14, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Everything Wall St. Should Know About Ryan
BYLINE: By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
SECTION: Section B; Column 0; Business/Financial Desk; DEALBOOK; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 984 words
He could be mistaken for a Wall Street banker. Or perhaps a hedge fund manager. Or even a managing director at a private equity firm, like Bain Capital.Paul Ryan, with his clean-cut Brooks Brothers looks and wonky obsession with spreadsheets, could be just the archetype of a Wall Streeter.
Mitt Romney's new running mate even trades stocks in his spare time. He's a fan of the nation's blue chips: among the stocks he owns are Apple, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, I.B.M., Procter & Gamble, Wells Fargo, Google, McDonald's, Nike and Berkshire Hathaway, according to his latest disclosure filing.
Mr. Ryan is a disciple of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, two figures long associated with free markets.
And he has the support of some powerful backers in finance: his top donors include employees of Wells Fargo, UBS, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. For his 2012 Congressional race, he raised about $179,000 from securities professionals (not a large sum, but certainly the single largest sector that donated money to his campaign).
One of the biggest contributors to his political action committee is from Paul Singer's hedge fund, Elliott Management. And Dan Senor, recently an investment adviser to Elliott Management, was just named Mr. Romney's new adviser. But what does Mr. Ryan think about Wall Street? His views may surprise you.
Mr. Ryan, who voted in 1999 to repeal parts of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing commercial and investment banks to merge, now appears to be in the same change-of-heart camp as Sandy Weill, the former chief executive of Citigroup, who recently declared that the banks should be broken up.
"We should make sure you can't get too big where you're going to become too big to fail and trigger a bailout," Mr. Ryan said during a meeting with constituents in May in Wisconsin. "If you're a bank and you want to operate like some nonbank entity like a hedge fund, then don't be a bank. Don't let banks use their customers' money to do anything other than traditional banking."
With a view like that, Mr. Ryan faces a challenge winning the support of the likes of Jamie Dimon, the chairman of JPMorgan Chase and a vocal supporter of the big bank model. (Mr. Dimon, a onetime supporter of President Obama, had recently been hinting he could vote for Mr. Romney, regularly calling himself "barely a Democrat.")
Mr. Ryan is also an ardent critic of the Dodd-Frank Act, the postcrisis Wall Street legislation. But, oddly enough, the provision he dislikes the most is the one that has the greatest support of the industry: a tool known as resolution authority, which gives the government the authority to dismantle a failing bank without wreaking havoc on the rest of the system. It was a provision that was supported by the former Republican Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. "We would have loved to have something like this for Lehman Brothers. There's no doubt about it," Mr. Paulson told me two years ago. The provision was also supported almost universally by Wall Street as a way to end the "too big to fail" problem.
Mr. Ryan's 2013 budget proposal sought to remove the resolution authority provision saying, "While the authors of the Dodd-Frank Act went to great lengths to denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them."
It is worth noting that Mr. Ryan voted in favor of the bank bailout in 2008, known as TARP or Troubled Asset Relief Program. Ahead of the vote, he encouraged his colleagues in the House to vote in favor of it to avoid "this Wall Street problem infecting Main Street."
He added: "This bill offends my principles, but I'm going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system. We're in this moment and if we fail to do the right thing, heaven help us."
While Mr. Ryan may appear to be a friend of business, he doesn't agree with the industry's biggest talking point these days, the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan. He was a member of the commission and voted it down, arguing that it did not go far enough in overhauling health care entitlements.
He later criticized President Obama for not supporting it. That prompted Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council under President Obama, to retort on CNN:
"Paul Ryan, talking about walking away from a balanced plan like Bowles-Simpson is, I don't know, somewhere between laughable and a new definition for chutzpah."
Oddly enough, Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, praised Mr. Ryan's proposed budget in a speech in 2011, saying, "I always thought that I was O.K. with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me."
Mr. Ryan also bucked the conventional Wall Street wisdom on how to deal with the debt ceiling. Many investment managers are wringing their hands about the uncertainty that the debate over the "fiscal cliff" is creating for markets. Last year, three months before the debt ceiling debate reached a peak, Mr. Ryan said that he was prepared to let the government default on its debt for at least several days if it would force Democrats to accept deeper cuts.
"They all say, 'Whatever you do, make sure you get real spending cuts,' " Mr. Ryan told CNBC about the way investors, including the hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller, wanted him to vote. "Because you want to make sure that the bondholder has the confidence that the government's going to be able to pay them. You're putting the government in a better position to pay them."
James Pethokoukis, a columnist for the American Enterprise Institute, which has traditionally supported Mr. Ryan, sent this Twitter message in April. "I hear what G.O.P. support there was for Obama/Bowles/Simpson debt panel plan is collapsing thanks to Ryan Plan."
So while financiers may cheer Mr. Ryan's pro-market policies, they may want to reassess just what those policies mean for their businesses.
This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.
URL: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-and-what-wall-street-should-know/
LOAD-DATE: August 14, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Paul Ryan dislikes the Dodd-Frank Act's ability to safely dismantle failing banks, a provision Wall Street strongly favors. (PHOTOGRAPH BY BEN GARVIN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (B7)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1288 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 14, 2012 Tuesday
New Ad Attacks Obama on Medicare
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR and SARAH WHEATON
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 497 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mitt Romney's campaign is embracing a potentially explosive debate over the future of Medicare with a new television ad that accuses President Obama of cutting $700 billion from the health care program for the elderly.
Mitt Romney's campaign signaled that it intended to fight rather than run from Democratic attacks over Republican Medicare policies, unveiling a new ad that stresses that President Obama cut $700 billion from the program.
Medicare has emerged as the main flash point in the campaign since the selection of Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and an advocate of fundamentally overhauling Medicare, as Mr. Romney's running mate. Democrats have responded aggressively, saying the Republican ticket would "end Medicare as we know it."
But with the new ad, Mr. Romney is making clear that he and Mr. Ryan will counterattack by invoking a criticism that Congressional Republicans used with some success in the 2010 elections: that Mr. Obama is the one who is endangering Medicare through his decision to cut $700 billion from the program as part of his health care bill.
The Romney ad, which will begin running soon, says that "the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you."
Democrats say the attack is an unfair and misleading attempt to scare seniors. They say that the $700 billion cut was to projected future growth in Medicare costs and did not cut benefits to current retirees. And they note that the budget by Mr. Ryan, the vice-presidential nominee, also includes the same cuts.
Medicare has re-emerged as a central fight in the presidential and Congressional campaigns this year in the wake of Mr. Ryan joining the Republican ticket. Mr. Obama and his allies have made it clear they intend to seize on the Medicare issue.
A union group has already begun buying online ads in Nevada saying that the "Romney-Ryan" plan would "double seniors' costs" and "raise the retirement age." A video by the Democratic National Committee talks about throwing "seniors under the bus."
But the Romney campaign's decision to quickly produce its own Medicare ad suggests that it is prepared to fight Democratic charges that Mr. Ryan's budget would gut the Medicare system by changing it into a voucher program.
Rather than engage in a purely defensive debate about Mr. Ryan's budget, the Republican ad aims to generate concerns among seniors about what would happen to Medicare if Mr. Obama is re-elected.
Republicans down the ballot have already begun making a similar argument. This morning, Representative John L. Mica of Florida released a spot- first posted to YouTube in July - in which an announcer says he is "committed to repealing Obamacare and restoring Medicare."
Republicans in Mr. Mica's redrawn Central Florida will decide Tuesday whether to nominate him or a Tea Party-backed candidate, Representative Sandy Adams, for a chance to return to Congress, but the ad seems geared more toward the general election.
"There will be increased advertising in Florida related to this issue," said Elizabeth Wilner, vice president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, "and Mica is trying to get ahead of the curve."
LOAD-DATE: August 14, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1289 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 14, 2012 Tuesday 8:40 PM EST
Why the Wisconsin Senate primary matters;
A look at why the Wisconsin Senate primary matters
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 872 words
In a state that has hosted two rounds of historic recall elections in the last year, Tuesday's primary might seem like an afterthought.
But a Senate primary season that has already featured Republican upsets in Nebraska, Indiana, Missouri and Texas might make room for one more in the Badger State. And it just might be the most consequential one of all.
Since the Republican race kicked into gear last year, Tommy Thompson, a well-known former governor who served four terms in the state's top job, has been the GOP front-runner.
But in the race's closing weeks, Thompson's lead has grown tenuous. And the combination of a spirited effort from national conservative groups who despise him and the viability of two alternative Republican candidates could be enough to prevent the former governor from celebrating Tuesday.
Both the Club For Growth and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are backing former Congressman Mark Neumann, arguably the most conservative candidate in the field. Supporters of Neumann have slammed Thompson's past moderate positions, including support for an individual health-care mandate. Meanwhile, Eric Hovde, a self-funding political newcomer from the private sector, has been flooding the airwaves in ads for months. His strategy has brought him well within striking distance of the lead.
Conservatives may not like Thompson's record, but he sure looks like the most electable Republican. An early August Marquette Law School poll showed Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) leading or tied with all Republican candidates except Thompson, whom she trailed by four points. A recent Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times survey showed Baldwin leading all Republican candidates except Thompson with whom she was tied.
In the Republican primary, Thompson's lead has shrunk. An 18-point advantage in a June Marquette poll has dwindled to a 33 percent to 24 percent lead over Hovde in the latest survey, with Neumann surging up to 21 percent.
Why would a Thompson defeat be so notable? So far, the upsets of note in Republican Senate primaries have come in red states Mitt Romney is expected carry at the presidential level in November.
Ted Cruz's win in Texas, surprising as it was, doesn't make the Lone Star State any less a GOP lock in November. Deb Fischer's win in Nebraska was a blow to the state GOP establishment as well as the Club For Growth. But she remains a substantial favorite over former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey. Republican Richard Mourdock's toppling of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) prompted a Democratic celebration. But Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) is still in the unenviable position of having to run ahead of President Obama, who is expected to lose Indiana.
The most significant upset to date has taken place in Missouri, where Rep. Todd Akin (R), aided by a Democratic effort to boost his candidacy, won the Republican nomination last week. His uncompromising social conservatism and unpredictable streak gives Democrats a bit more hope than they would have had against other Republicans. But polling conducted toward the end of the primary still showed Akin leading Sen. Claire McCaskill (D). And McCaskill won't be benefitting from the top of the ticket, as Obama isn't expected to win the Show-Me State.
Wisconsin, however, is more of a swing state. It hasn't voted for a Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan in 1984. But in 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush came within a point of victory. And in 2010, Republicans took control of the governorship and state legislature. They hung onto the former in a June recall election.
Why is Thompson the strongest Republican for the general election? For starters he's well-known across the state. (You don't serve four terms as governor without leaving a lasting impression.) Secondly, the same perceived moderation that is hurting him in the primary could help Thompson with independents in the general election.
To be clear, neither Hovde nor Neumann would be general election disasters. And in Wisconsin's polarized environment, GOP energy should be high regardless of the nominee.
However, in a general election race expected to be close, Thompson looks like the best GOP bet. That simply can't be overlooked.
Hovde is a still an unknown quantity. And he's lived in Washington for much of his adult life. Meanwhile, Neumann's conservatism makes him less of a threat to win the ideological middle, and he has a yesterday's news quality about him, as he's lost statewide bids more than once already.
The polling speaks for itself, and so does the Democratic posture, which appears to confirm a preference to run against Neumann, not Thompson. The Democratic-aligned Majority PAC released an ad in July which hit Hovde and Thompson, but spared Neumann.
Regardless of Tuesday's outcome, both sides will claim to have the upper hand Wednesday morning. Allies of Baldwin, whose fundraising has been very strong, will say that the bloody Republican primary has weakened the GOP nominee. Republicans will point to Baldwin's liberal record in the House as a reason they relish challenging her.
Tuesday will test whether Republican voters prize electability for what promises to be a competitive fall campaign. Thompson is sure hoping that they will.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1290 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 14, 2012 Tuesday 8:12 PM EST
Surprising the pundits: Oh how routine.
BYLINE: Al Kamen
SECTION: A section; Pg. A11
LENGTH: 947 words
Political prognosticators didn't see GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's choice of Rep. Paul Ryanas his running mate coming - but it was hardly the first time a candidate has defied the expectations of the chattering class. Although Ryan enjoyed strong support from conservative Republicans and leading conservative publications, the consensus seemed to be pointing to Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) as Romney's likely choice. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty was in second place, according to prevailing wisdom.
The selection of Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican usually mentioned in the second tier on prognosticators' lists, threw many for a loop.
But the surprise shouldn't have been a surprise: The media cognoscenti don't have particularly sparkling track records when it comes to predicting vice presidential selections - especially when it comes to the GOP candidates.
Most of the Democratic vice presidential picks made at least a few of the Great Mentioners' lists: Walter Mondale (1976), Lloyd Bentsen(1988), Al Gore(1992), John Edwards(2004) and Joe Biden(2008). Gore's pick of Joe Lieberman(2000) might count as a mild surprise but hardly stunning.
The only real surprise was Mondale's selection of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. There had been chatter about Mondale picking a woman for the No. 2 slot, but most thought Dianne Feinstein was the leading candidate in that category. Republican picks have been pretty much shockers to the punditocracy, at least in the past four rounds: Sarah Palin(2008), Dick Cheney(2000), Jack Kemp(1996) and Dan Quayle(1988).
Ronald Reagan's pick of George H.W. Bushin 1980 and Gerald Ford's pick of Bob Dolein 1976 weren't great surprises.
On the other hand, maybe the prognosticators were right and Romney was leaning toward Portman . . . but somebody might have informed Romney that Portman and Sen. John Kerry are good buddies; they have been seen frequently on morning bike rides.
And Romney and Kerry despise each other. Kerry is even going to play Romney in President Obama's debate prep.
Ahead of the game
Even if the professional political-forecasting crowd didn't have Ryan as the odds-on favorite to be Romney's vice presidential pick, some Loop fans did.
We asked in April for your predictions of whom Romney would select. Lots of you figured it would be Portman or Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. We even got a few wacky dark horses (Ted Nugentor former senator Rick Santorumof Pennsylvania, really?). But some of you correctly picked Ryan, including our winners, Kevin Sturtevant, a fund-raiser for a nonprofit from Silver Spring, and Howard Cohen, a public affairs consultant from North Hills, Calif.
Congratulations, and enjoy those coveted Loop T-shirts coming your way.
Ambassador's stewardship
New details are emerging about the resignation of Scott Grationas U.S. ambassador to Kenya last month, revealing what an inspector general's report called dysfunction, security lapses and poor morale under his stewardship.
Gration, though, says the report is riddled with inaccuracies.
Gration, a retired Air Force major general who voted for President George W. Bushbut in 2008 campaigned for Barack Obamato be president, stepped down ahead of an impending inspector general report critical of his leadership.
That report - a scathing document detailing Gration's failed management of the embassy in Kenya - was released Friday."The Ambassador has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission," the report said. In a blunt assessment, the report found his leadership to be "divisive and ineffective." He directed staff to work on projects with "unclear status and almost no value," it said.
It also portrayed him as a bit of a freelancer who did not read classified front channel messages, used commercial e-mail systems instead of secure government ones for official business (including work that included the use of sensitive materials) and ignored U.S. government policy.
"The Ambassador's greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions," the report found, citing "his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts."
The report also said he was unavailable to meet with senior staff. "In his first year in Kenya he has met only between a third and a half of the prominent Kenyans the mission recommended he see in his first 100 days in country," the report said.
In an interview, Gration strongly disputed the report, saying it included many factual errors. He said he was "disappointed" by its conclusions and defended his record of leadership.
For example, he said that his use of commercial e-mail was never a security threat, noting that at one time he headed information security for the military. And he denied the accusation that he didn't meet with all the Kenyans he should have, saying that he and top embassy officials created a list of those he needed to see personally. "I met with everyone on that list," he said.
He acknowledged that his desire to shift the embassy's agenda might have upset some staff members and prompted them to criticize him. "I did rock the boat," he said. "I made changes in priorities, and changes can be very hard."
He said that he hadn't spoken directly to Obama but that the president "was aware of my situation."
kamena@washpost.com
With Emily Heil
The blog: washingtonpost.com/intheloop. Twitter: @InTheLoopWP.
LOAD-DATE: August 14, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1291 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 14, 2012 Tuesday 7:58 PM EST
What's the matter with Iowa?;
How the Hawkeye State is, again, at the center of the presidential race universe.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1141 words
President Obama is in the midst of a three-day campaign swing through the state of Iowa, his longest visit to one state so far in the 2012 race and a sign of the concern and consequence with which his side holds the Hawkeye State.
"I have nightmares about the electoral college coming down to 266-266, with Iowa to decide it," said longtime Iowa Democratic operative Jerry Crawford. "It's not as far-fetched as it might sound."
Added Dave Roederer, who ran the George W. Bush operation in Iowa: "This is an unprecedented five-city tour. I doubt he's here for the mountains."
Iowa has long been a place of practical and symbolic importance to Obama. It was in Iowa where Obama delivered perhaps the most important/best speech of his 2008 candidacy (at the 2007 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner) and it was in Iowa where the idea of Obama became reality when he won the caucuses. And it was Iowa that Obama visited shortly after declaring his plan to seek re-election this spring.
"He has a genuine fondness for the place, and my guess is that energizes him," said Jo Dee Winterhof, a Democratic operative and Iowa native.
And yet, the Iowa of 2012 is not the Iowa of four years ago when Obama won by 10 points and 140,000 votes over Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Iowa Republicans had a banner year in 2010, ousting Gov. Chet Culver (D) and re-electing Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) handily. Then came a hotly-contested Iowa presidential caucus fight that saw the GOP field lavish attention and money on the Hawkeye State.
Republicans are quick to note that they have erased Democrats' 100,000-person registration edge in the state and now lead in the registration fight - albeit narrowly. (As of early August, there were 620,584 registered Iowa Republicans and 598,995 registered Iowa Democrats, according to the Secretary of State.) And newly picked vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan spent Monday in the state, a sign of the opportunity that Romney and Republicans believe they have to win,.
Polling in the state affirms the competitiveness of the contest. In the Real Clear Politics average of Iowa polls, Obama takes 45.3 percent to Romney's 44.3 percent and a May NBC/Marist survey showed the race literally tied at 44 percent apiece.
Democrats note that the narrowness of the likely Iowa margin is less a sign of Obama's weakness in places where he was once strong than it is indicative of the Hawkeye State returning to its swing roots.
Mark Daley, a one-time senior staffer for Hillary Clinton's Iowa presidential campaign, noted that George W. Bush carried the Hawkeye State by 1,000 votes in the 2004 general election and Al Gore won it by just 5,000 votes in the 2000 presidential race.
Still, that the sitting president of the United States is spending three full days riding around Iowa in a bus speaks to just how much things have changed since four years ago.
Unlike 2008, when Obama cruised to a massive victory with 365 electoral votes, this November the math is far less advantageous.
That means Iowa and its six electoral votes could well make the difference between winning and losing a second term for Obama.
"The state carries only six electoral votes, but if the tide shifts in other states, it could come down to Iowa," said Daley.
Romney ad criticizes Obama for super PAC ad: A new TV ad from Romney's campaign hits Obama for a super PAC ad that suggests Romney is responsible for the death of a woman.
"What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use a tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?" the narrator asks as the YouTube version of the Priorities USA Action ad is shown.
The ad then flashes quotes from newspapers about the ad - words like "disgusting" and "scraping bottom."
Of course, in contrast to what the ad suggests, Obama's campaign is not running the ad; a super PAC which it cannot coordinate with is. Obama's campaign has featured the man, Joe Soptic, in a conference call and a previous ad, but the ad leaves the impression that Obama's campaign ran the ad that is currently controversial.
The ad also says Obama had "his campaign raise money for the ad and stood by as his top aides were caught lying about it."
Again, this takes some liberties with the facts. While Obama has encouraged contributions to the super PAC, there is no evidence that he has asked for contributions specifically for the ad in question. And while some have suggested his campaign aides weren't forthcoming when they said they weren't familiar with Soptic's story - especially since they had worked with him a few months prior - it's not clear they were actually "lying about it."
Romney's campaign is attempting to force the issue, though, and make sure Obama aides continue to be pressed on the super PAC ad. It has been an uncomfortable situation thus far.
Fixbits:
A new Granite State Poll shows Obama ahead 49 percent to 46 percent in New Hampshire.
Obama attacks Ryan for the GOP House's failure to pass a farm bill.
Ryan raised money in Denver on Monday.
Romney's campaign denies he's suffering from exhaustion and says he hit the gym Monday.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is launching phone calls against 50 House GOP incumbents on Ryan's budget.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) will tie Elizabeth Warren (D) to Obama's "You didn't build that" comment in a speech today. "She points to roads and bridges and government services we all use," Brown will say, according to advance excerpts. "But to downplay individual initiative as nothing more than a byproduct of big government is to fundamentally misunderstand our free enterprise system, and it is a backward view of who we are as Americans."
More than half of voters say debates are important to their vote choice, and nearly half say the choice of a running mate is as well.
In the Montana governor's race, former congressman Rick Hill (R) raised twice as much as state Attorney General Steve Bullock (D) over the last month.
Former state senator Nancy Cassis, who lost a write-in bid to Kerry Bentivolio in the GOP primary for former congressman Thaddeus McCotter's (R-Mich.) seat, will continue her campaign in the special election for the final two months of McCotter's term. The primary in that race is set for Sept. 5. Cassis is also upset that Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has endorsed Bentivolio.
Must-reads:
"Understanding the Ryan plan" - Matt Miller, Washington Post
"Shays's Rebellion: The Last Yankee Republican Fights For His Political Life" - John Avlon, The Daily Beast
"Could Ryan Tip Wisconsin Toward Romney?" - Micah Cohen, New York Times
"Paul Ryan, Republican vice presidential candidate, has a complicated record with little compromise" - David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post
"How Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan has reshaped presidential campaign" - Dan Balz, Washington Post
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1292 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 14, 2012 Tuesday 7:03 PM EST
Paul Ryan slams Obama on energy policy as Romney camp prepares to roll out Medicare ad
BYLINE: Felicia Sonmez
LENGTH: 722 words
LAKEWOOD, Colo. - In his second solo campaign event as the presumptive GOP vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Tuesday morning delivered a sharp critique of President Obama's energy policy, arguing that the president "has done all that he can to make it harder for us to use our own energy."
Before a mostly older crowd of around 3,000 people at Lakewood High School, Ryan spoke of the country's energy policy in broad terms, contending that through over-regulation and a refusal to tap domestic resources, there has been a "failure of leadership" under Obama.
But there was no mention by Ryan of his signature plan to overhaul Medicare - a proposal that has been a rallying point for the conservative base and which has become a flashpoint in the presidential campaign in the days since Romney tapped Ryan.
"Here is our promise to you: We are not going to duck the tough issues. We are going to lead," Ryan told the crowd to boisterous cheers.
The event came as Romney's campaign is gearing up to release a new TV ad taking aim at Obama for the $716 billion in savings in Medicare provider payments expected over the next decade through the national health-care law.
"The message here is that we are on offense on Medicare. ... This a debate we invite," said the aide, who spoke anonymously in order to discuss campaign strategy.
Ryan is also expected to address the issue in an interview with Fox News Channel's Bret Baier, which was taped Monday and will air Tuesday night at 6 p.m. Eastern.
Asked why Ryan made no mention of Medicare at Tuesday's Colorado event, the aide responded: "Today's event was about energy."
And asked about Democrats' argument that the more than $700 billion in Medicare savings would be geared toward providers and not to beneficiaries, the aide said: "That is a distinction without a difference."
In his 20-minute remarks, Ryan charged that Obama's policies have been "demonizing small business" and said that if he and Romney are elected, the two will seek to roll back regulations and will approve the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.
The crowd gave Ryan a raucous welcome, and at one point attendees stomped their feet on the bleachers in the Lakewood High School gymnasium as Ryan was being introduced. His biggest applause line came not on energy policy, however, but rather when he told the crowd: "We also have to stop spending money we don't have."
Since being tapped as Romney's running mate, Ryan has sought to balance his dual roles of partisan attack dog and GOP ideas man, and both sides were on display at Tuesday's event.
In his role as the former, he told the crowd that "we've gone from hope and change to attack and blame."
"This is the worst economic recovery - if you can call it that - in 70 years," he said.
Picking up on the GOP theme that Obama is waging "class warfare," Ryan charged that Obama is "speaking to people as if we're stuck in our station in life, victims of circumstances beyond our control, and that only the government is here to help us cope with it."
"You know, I don't know about you, but when I was growing up, you know, when I was flipping burgers in McDonald's, when I was ... washing dishes or waiting tables, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life," he said.
And he argued that Romney "is living proof of the example that if you have a small business, you did build that small business."
In an appeal to voters in this key swing state, Ryan also told the crowd of how he and his family have frequently vacationed in Colorado - and noted that his wife and children are camping in the state this week.
"There's nothing like the stars and the skies and the Colorado Rockies at night," he said. "It is something else. We look at our kids, and we know that they are our future. But today, we look at our kids, and we know without a shadow of a doubt that we are mortgaging their future. ... We are giving them a diminished future, and President Obama has made it worse."
While the crowd at the event was mostly older, Ryan was introduced by the student body president of Lakewood High School.
And his conversational approach on the stump - he roamed the stage using only a handheld microphone - appeared to have won over a few fans in the crowd.
"Look, no teleprompter!" one man in the crowd yelled, to applause from the rest of the audience.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1293 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 14, 2012 Tuesday 5:33 PM EST
New Obama ad: 'Get real, Mitt';
A new ad from President Obama's reelection campaign tells students - and their parents - that Romney would make it harder to pay for college.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 343 words
A new ad from President Obama's reelection campaign tells students - and their parents - that Mitt Romney would make it harder to pay for college and is out-of-touch with the average family's costs.
A clip of Romney suggesting that students borrow money from their parents to pay for school plays twice, with the narrator adding at the end, "Get real, Mitt."
In the video, taken from an April appearance at Otterbein University in Ohio, the former Massachusetts governor says, "Take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents."
The narrator chimes in, "Hope they can afford it. Romney's plans could cut college aid for nearly 10 million students and eliminate the tax deduction for college tuition." President Obama, on the other hand, "eliminated bank middlemen from college loans and used the savings to double college grants."
Obama and Romney actually agreed on extending low-interest rates for student loans. Last fall, Obama also used his executive authority to make changes in the federal loan program to make loans more affordable and easier to repay.
As for the accusations against Romney, note that the ad says "could," not "would." Romney has not called for these policies; the Obama campaign is making assumptions based on his tax plan and the policies of his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
Romney has said he would eliminate tax breaks and deductions to cover the cost of his tax cuts. He has not singled out college tuition, but a recent Tax Policy Center analysis concluded that education tax breaks would have to be cut to avoid increasing the deficit. Ryan has called from some cuts in federal student aid and would lower education spending over the next decade.
"Under President Obama, the costs of college have skyrocketed," Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg responded. "Mitt Romney will encourage innovation and competition to make college more affordable, and his economic policies will give recent graduates the job opportunities they deserve."
The ad is running in Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1294 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 14, 2012 Tuesday
Suburban Edition
Surprising the pundits: Oh how routine.
BYLINE: Al Kamen
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A11
LENGTH: 917 words
Political prognosticators didn't see GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's choice of Rep. Paul Ryanas his running mate coming - but it was hardly the first time a candidate has defied the expectations of the chattering class.
Although Ryan enjoyed strong support from conservative Republicans and leading conservative publications, the consensus seemed to be pointing to Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) as Romney's likely choice. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty was in second place, according to prevailing wisdom.
The selection of Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican usually mentioned in the second tier on prognosticators' lists, threw many for a loop.
But the surprise shouldn't have been a surprise: The media cognoscenti don't have particularly sparkling track records when it comes to predicting vice presidential selections - especially when it comes to the GOP candidates.
Most of the Democratic vice presidential picks made at least a few of the Great Mentioners' lists: Walter Mondale (1976), Lloyd Bentsen (1988), Al Gore (1992), John Edwards (2004) and Joe Biden (2008). Gore's pick of Joe Lieberman (2000) might count as a mild surprise but hardly stunning.
The only real surprise was Mondale's selection of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. There had been chatter about Mondale picking a woman for the No. 2 slot, but most thought Dianne Feinstein was the leading candidate in that category. Republican picks have been pretty much shockers to the punditocracy, at least in the past four rounds: Sarah Palin (2008), Dick Cheney (2000), Jack Kemp (1996) and Dan Quayle (1988).
Ronald Reagan's pick of George H.W. Bush in 1980 and Gerald Ford's pick of Bob Dole in 1976 weren't great surprises.
On the other hand, maybe the prognosticators were right and Romney was leaning toward Portman . . . but somebody might have informed Romney that Portman and Sen. John Kerry are good buddies; they have been seen frequently on morning bike rides.
And Romney and Kerry despise each other. Kerry is even going to play Romney in President Obama's debate prep.
Ahead of the game
Even if the professional political-forecasting crowd didn't have Ryan as the odds-on favorite to be Romney's vice presidential pick, some Loop fans did.
We asked in April for your predictions of whom Romney would select. Lots of you figured it would bePortman or Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. We even got a few wacky dark horses (Ted Nugentor former senatorRick Santorum of Pennsylvania, really?).
But some of you correctly picked Ryan, including our winners, Kevin Sturtevant, a fund-raiser for a nonprofit from Silver Spring, and Howard Cohen, a public affairs consultant from North Hills, Calif.
Congratulations, and enjoy those coveted Loop T-shirts coming your way.
Ambassador's stewardship
New details are emerging about the resignation of Scott Gration as U.S. ambassador to Kenya last month, revealing what an inspector general's report called dysfunction, security lapses and poor morale under his stewardship.
Gration, though, says the report is riddled with inaccuracies.
Gration, a retired Air Force major general who voted for President George W. Bush but in 2008 campaigned for Barack Obama to be president, stepped down ahead of an impending inspector general report critical of his leadership.
That report- a scathing document detailing Gration's failed management of the embassy in Kenya - was released Friday.
"The Ambassador has lost the respect and confidence of the staff to lead the mission," the report said. In a blunt assessment, the report found his leadership to be "divisive and ineffective." He directed staff to work on projects with "unclear status and almost no value," it said.
It also portrayed him as a bit of a freelancer who did not read classified front channel messages, used commercial e-mail systems instead of secure government ones for official business (including work that included the use of sensitive materials) and ignored U.S. government policy.
"The Ambassador's greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions," the report found, citing "his disagreement with Washington policy decisions and directives concerning the safe-havening in Nairobi of families of Department employees who volunteered to serve in extreme hardship posts."
The report also said he was unavailable to meet with senior staff. "In his first year in Kenya he has met only between a third and a half of the prominent Kenyans the mission recommended he see in his first 100 days in country," the report said.
In an interview, Gration strongly disputed the report, saying it included many factual errors. He said he was "disappointed" by its conclusions and defended his record of leadership.
For example, he said that his use of commercial e-mail was never a security threat, noting that at one time he headed information security for the military. And he denied the accusation that he didn't meet with all the Kenyans he should have, saying that he and top embassy officials created a list of those he needed to see personally. "I met with everyone on that list," he said.
He acknowledged that his desire to shift the embassy's agenda might have upset some staff members and prompted them to criticize him. "I did rock the boat," he said. "I made changes in priorities, and changes can be very hard."
He said that he hadn't spoken directly to Obama but that the president "was aware of my situation."
kamena@washpost.com
With Emily Heil
The blog: washingtonpost.com/intheloop. Twitter: @InTheLoopWP.
LOAD-DATE: August 14, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1295 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(DealBook)
August 13, 2012 Monday
Everything Wall St. Should Know About Ryan
BYLINE: ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 971 words
HIGHLIGHT: Paul Ryan, who voted for the Glass-Steagall repeal in 1999, today says banks should not be too big to fail. And he differs with Wall Street on some other points as well.
He could be mistaken for a Wall Street banker. Or perhaps a hedge fund manager. Or even a managing director at a private equity firm, like Bain Capital.
Paul Ryan, with his clean-cut Brooks Brothers looks and wonky obsession with spreadsheets, could be just the archetype of a Wall Streeter.
Mitt Romney's new running mate even trades stocks in his spare time. He's a fan of the nation's blue chips: among the stocks he owns are Apple, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, I.B.M., Procter & Gamble, Wells Fargo, Google, McDonald's, Nike and Berkshire Hathaway, according to his latest disclosure filing.
Mr. Ryan is a disciple of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, two figures long associated with free markets.
And he has the support of some powerful backers in finance: his top donors include employees of Wells Fargo, UBS, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. For his 2012 Congressional race, he raised about $179,000 from securities professionals (not a large sum, but certainly the single largest sector that donated money to his campaign).
One of the biggest contributors to his political action committee is from Paul Singer's hedge fund, Elliott Management. And Dan Senor, recently an investment adviser to Elliott Management, was just named Mr. Romney's new adviser. But what does Mr. Ryan think about Wall Street? His views may surprise you.
Mr. Ryan, who voted in 1999 to repeal parts of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing commercial and investment banks to merge, now appears to be in the same change-of-heart camp as Sandy Weill, the former chief executive of Citigroup, who recently declared that the banks should be broken up.
"We should make sure you can't get too big where you're going to become too big to fail and trigger a bailout," Mr. Ryan said during a meeting with constituents in May in Wisconsin. "If you're a bank and you want to operate like some nonbank entity like a hedge fund, then don't be a bank. Don't let banks use their customers' money to do anything other than traditional banking."
With a view like that, Mr. Ryan faces a challenge winning the support of the likes of Jamie Dimon, the chairman of JPMorgan Chase and a vocal supporter of the big bank model. (Mr. Dimon, a onetime supporter of President Obama, had recently been hinting he could vote for Mr. Romney, regularly calling himself "barely a Democrat.")
Mr. Ryan is also an ardent critic of the Dodd-Frank Act, the postcrisis Wall Street legislation. But, oddly enough, the provision he dislikes the most is the one that has the greatest support of the industry: a tool known as resolution authority, which gives the government the authority to dismantle a failing bank without wreaking havoc on the rest of the system. It was a provision that was supported by the former Republican Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. "We would have loved to have something like this for Lehman Brothers. There's no doubt about it," Mr. Paulson told me two years ago. The provision was also supported almost universally by Wall Street as a way to end the "too big to fail" problem.
Mr. Ryan's 2013 budget proposal sought to remove the resolution authority provision saying, "While the authors of the Dodd-Frank Act went to great lengths to denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them."
It is worth noting that Mr. Ryan voted in favor of the bank bailout in 2008, known as TARP or Troubled Asset Relief Program. Ahead of the vote, he encouraged his colleagues in the House to vote in favor of it to avoid "this Wall Street problem infecting Main Street."
He added: "This bill offends my principles, but I'm going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system. We're in this moment and if we fail to do the right thing, heaven help us."
While Mr. Ryan may appear to be a friend of business, he doesn't agree with the industry's biggest talking point these days, the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan. He was a member of the commission and voted it down, arguing that it did not go far enough in overhauling health care entitlements.
He later criticized President Obama for not supporting it. That prompted Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council under President Obama, to retort on CNN:
"Paul Ryan, talking about walking away from a balanced plan like Bowles-Simpson is, I don't know, somewhere between laughable and a new definition for chutzpah."
Oddly enough, Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, praised Mr. Ryan's proposed budget in a speech in 2011, saying, "I always thought that I was O.K. with arithmetic, but this guy can run circles around me."
Mr. Ryan also bucked the conventional Wall Street wisdom on how to deal with the debt ceiling. Many investment managers are wringing their hands about the uncertainty that the debate over the "fiscal cliff" is creating for markets. Last year, three months before the debt ceiling debate reached a peak, Mr. Ryan said that he was prepared to let the government default on its debt for at least several days if it would force Democrats to accept deeper cuts.
"They all say, 'Whatever you do, make sure you get real spending cuts,' " Mr. Ryan told CNBC about the way investors, including the hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller, wanted him to vote. "Because you want to make sure that the bondholder has the confidence that the government's going to be able to pay them. You're putting the government in a better position to pay them."
James Pethokoukis, a columnist for the American Enterprise Institute, which has traditionally supported Mr. Ryan, sent this Twitter message in April. "I hear what G.O.P. support there was for Obama/Bowles/Simpson debt panel plan is collapsing thanks to Ryan Plan."
So while financiers may cheer Mr. Ryan's pro-market policies, they may want to reassess just what those policies mean for their businesses.
LOAD-DATE: August 14, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1296 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 13, 2012 Monday 9:57 PM EST
Paul Ryan makes solo debut in Iowa;
Ryan makes first solo appearance in Iowa
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 526 words
Mitt Romney talks Medicare in Florida, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) makes his solo debut in Iowa, and Bill Clinton enters the fray in Connecticut's 5th District.
Make sure to sign up to receive "Afternoon Fix" every day in your e-mail inbox by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
5 races where Paul Ryan could matter
What Ayn Rand says about Paul Ryan
Jesse Jackson Jr. undergoing treatment for bipolar disorder
How Paul Ryan impacts the electoral map. Or doesn't.
Positive views of Ryan jump higher after pick
Paul Ryan pick is less popular than Palin, Cheney selections, poll shows
Presidential debate moderators announced: Crowley is first woman in 20 years
We read the Paul Ryan New Yorker profile so you don't have to
Sarah Palin won't speak at GOP convention
The 25-day fight to define Paul Ryan
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* In his first solo campaign stop since being named Mitt Romney's running mate on Saturday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), stumping in Iowa, said "President Obama has given us four years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. He's making matters worse, and he's spending our children into a diminished future." Ryan faced hecklers, who had to be removed from the stage.
Romney was campaigning in Florida, where he praised Ryan and went on offense against President Obama on Medicare, saying, "the president's idea for Medicare was to cut it by $700 billion. That's not the right answer. We need to make sure we can preserve and protect Medicare."
* The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Futureis spending nearly $10.5 million on an 11-state ad buy against Obama. The ad, which will run in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, hits the president over the economy, and says that his lack of a record to run on has prompted his allies to attack Romney.
* One day before voters head to the polls in Connecticut's 5th District, Bill Clinton endorsed Democratic candidate Dan Roberti in the primary campaign to replace Rep. Chris Murphy (D), who is running for the Senate.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Fox News Channel's Brit Hume has landed the first one-on-one interview with Ryan since he was named Romney's running mate on Saturday. The interview will air on Tuesday at 6 p.m.
* Following a report citing instances in which former congressman Pete Hoekstra advocated for repeal of the 17th amendment (which allows the direct election of senators) Democrats are pouncing, in an attempt to cast the Michigan Republican Senate nominee as outside the mainstream.
* For the third time this year, Obama will travel to New Hampshire this upcoming Saturday. He will be in the Granite State for campaign events.
* On Friday, the National Republican Congressional Committee will begin airing ads against four vulnerable incumbents: Reps. John Barrow (D-Ga.), Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Mark Critz (D-Pa.).
THE FIX MIX:
Dumbo like you haven't seen it before.
With Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1297 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 13, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
Across the aisle, Wyden's a hit
BYLINE: Jason Horowitz
SECTION: Style; Pg. C08
LENGTH: 919 words
Senator Ron Wyden, a lifelong liberal Democrat from Oregon, has emerged as a key Republican talking point in the 2012 presidential election.
In his proud pursuit of creative, if politically implausible, policy initiatives, Wyden has in the past teamed up with the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the newly anointed Republican vice presidential candidate. Their collaboration on a Medicare reform proposal helped cement Wyden's reputation as a "King of Policy Wonks," as he is sometimes dismissively referred to within his caucus. And it also has given Republicans some cover on the campaign trail.
Now, no less a Republican standard bearer than Mitt Romney, the GOP's presidential nominee-in-waiting, is invoking Wyden as evidence of his new running mate's crossover appeal.
Speaking about the Ryan-Wyden proposal at a Saturday rally at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Va., Romney said that Ryan "found a Democrat to co-lead a piece of legislation to make sure we can save Medicare."
In Manassas, Romney explicitly name-checked Wyden to argue that Ryan actually wanted to save Medicare where President Obama and Democrats wanted to slash it. "Paul Ryan and Senator Wyden said, 'No, we need to restore, retain and protect Medicare,' " Romney said. "That's what our party will do."
Wyden is apparently displeased about his sudden prominence as a validator of the Republican ticket.
"Governor Romney is talking nonsense," Wyden said in a statement to reporters Saturday night. He based most of his objection to Romney's remarks on semantics, saying his proposal with Ryan was not legislation but "a policy paper."
That is not an explanation that his fellow Democrats find persuasive.
"He got used," said one Senate Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about how Wyden is seen among Democrats in the Senate.
A common view of Wyden within his own caucus is of a man who holds himself out as an intellectually superior renegade who is above the constraints of politics. That self-regard, and a tendency toward peevishness, sometimes leads him to stake out positions that are politically inconvenient to his party. The chief effect of his collaboration with Ryan has been to boost the Republican vice presidential candidate's bipartisan bona fides and to give the Romney campaign a data point to distract voters from the more politically charged vision of Medicare offered in Ryan's budget proposal.
By inviting Ryan onto the ticket, Romney energized his base and focused the national debate more squarely on fiscal issues. But he also attached himself to the man the Obama campaign and Democrats will continue to attack as the embodiment of the threat to Medicare's existence. (One ad depicted Ryan as physically pushing a senior citizen in a wheelchair off a cliff.)
Ryan's 2011 deficit-slashing budget proposal elevated him to a tea party hero and marked him as a Democratic bogeyman. The Wisconsin congressman subsequently offered a more moderate approach, perhaps in an effort to soften his image and boost his party's fortunes. Wyden, to the horror of his own party, helped him do that. While Ryan's original legislation proposed giving seniors federal dollars to purchase private health coverage, the Wyden-Ryan proposal was more politically palatable, giving seniors a choice between traditional Medicare and expanded private coverage.
The White House said the plan would nevertheless "end Medicare as we know it." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other House Democrats said it would essentially kill Medicare. Republican leaders, aware they had just received a gift from across the aisle, exressed markedly less criticism. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called it "a bipartisan idea that's worthy of our consideration." Newt Gingrich, who called Ryan's original plan "right-wing social engineering," tweeted that the "Wyden-Ryan bipartisan Medicare reform plan is a major breakthrough." Romney, who had called the original Ryan plan "marvelous," himself proposed a similar plan. Now he hopes the Wyden-Ryan collaboration complicates Democrats' otherwise laser-clear line of attack on his running mate, and, by association, him.
Senate Democrats, while doubtful at best about the wisdom of Wyden's joint effort with Ryan, are not about to let it dissuade them from targeting the would-be vice president for what they claim is a hard-line and heartless budget proposal.
"It's not going to put any chilling effect on Democrats going after Ryan," said the Democratic operative. "No one is going to restrain their criticism of the Ryan plan based on the fact that Ron Wyden signed on to a version of it."
It's not the first time Democrats have questioned Wyden's political acumen or wondered whether he wasn't exploiting his reputation as a bipartisan ideas man to stay in office.
In 2010, Wyden, in search of an issue to bolster his bipartisan credentials and stave off conservative challengers back home, connected with Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) on a bill to tweak President Obama's health-care overhaul. That proposal, although unsuccessful, helped him get reelected. It is also now part of Brown's bipartisan credentials in running for reelection in liberal Massachusetts.
Teaming up with Wyden hasn't always been a blessing for Republicans. Utah's three-term Republican senator, Robert F. Bennett, joined with Wyden to sponsor a health-care bill - a move that infuriated tea party activists and other conservatives, who promptly bounced Bennett from office.
horowitzj@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1298 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 13, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
Speaking conservatives' language
BYLINE: George F. Will
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 776 words
When, in his speech accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination, Barry Goldwater said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue," a media wit at the convention supposedly exclaimed, "Good God, Goldwater is going to run as Goldwater." When Mitt Romney decided to run with Paul Ryan, many conservatives may have thought, "Thank God, Romney is not going to run as Romney." Not, that is, as the Romney who 12 months ago, warily eyeing Iowa, refused to say a discouraging word about the ethanol debacle. Rather, he is going to run as the Romney who, less than two weeks before announcing Ryan, told the states - Iowa prominent among them - that he opposes extending the wind energy production tax credit, which expires soon.
This may seem a minor matter, as well as an obvious and easy decision for a conservative. The wind tax credit is, after all, industrial policy, the government picking winners and losers in defiance of market signals - industrial policy always is a refusal to heed the market's rejection of that which the government singles out for favoritism. But ethanol subsidies also are industrial policy. And just a few days after Romney got the wind subsidy right, more than half of the 11 Republican senators on the Finance Committee got it wrong, voting to extend it. So even before choosing Ryan, Romney was siding with what might, with a nod to Howard Dean, be called the Republican wing of the Republican Party. For Romney, conservatism is a second language, but he speaks it with increasing frequency and fluency. Romney embraced Ryan after the sociopathic - indifferent to the truth - ad for Barack Obama that is meretricious about every important particular of the death from cancer of the wife of steelworker Joe Soptic. Obama's desperate flailing about to justify four more years has sunk into such unhinged smarminess that Romney may have concluded: There is nothing Obama won't say about me, because he has nothing to say for himself, so I will chose a running mate whose seriousness about large problems and ideas underscores what the president has become - silly and small.
He on whose behalf the Soptic ad was made used to dispense bromides deploring "the smallness of our politics" and "our preference for scoring cheap political points." Obama's campaign of avoidance - say anything to avoid the subject of the country's condition - must now reckon with Ryan's mastery of Obama's enormous addition to decades of governmental malpractice.
Obama is, by now, nothing if not predictable, so prepare for pieties deploring Ryan's brand of "extremism" that has supplanted responsible conservatism. Goldwater, quoted above, infuriated the sort of people who, regardless of what flavor of conservatism is in fashion, invariably purse their lips and sorrowfully say: "We think conservatism is a valuable thread in our national fabric, etc., but not this kind of conservatism." Goldwater's despisers did not recognize his echo of words by Martin Luther King Jr. 15 months earlier.
In his "Letter From Birmingham Jail," King wrote, "You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. . . . But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love. . . . Was not Amos an extremist for justice. . . . Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel. . . . Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
Remember this episode when you hear, ad nauseam, that Ryan is directly, and Romney now is derivatively, an extremist for believing (a) that "ending Medicare as we know it" will be done by arithmetic if it is not done by creative reforms of the sort Ryan proposes, and (b) that the entitlement state's crisis cannot be cured, as Obama suggests, by adding 4.6 points to the tax rate paid by less than 3 percent of Americans.
When Ryan said in Norfolk, "We won't replace our Founding principles, we will reapply them," he effectively challenged Obama to say what Obama believes, which is: Madison was an extremist in enunciating the principles of limited government - the enumeration and separation of powers. And Jefferson was an extremist in asserting that government exists not to grant rights but to "secure" natural rights that pre-exist government.
Romney's selection of a running mate was, in method and outcome, presidential. It underscores how little in the last four years merits that adjective.
georgewill@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1299 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 13, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 448 words
QUOTE OF THE WEEK "If you could depend on the government for one thing, it was that you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this [Republican Party] is the E. coli club. They do not want to spend money to do that."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi(D-Calif.), speaking at a fundraiser for a House candidate in Boca Raton, Fla.
BY THE NUMBERS
9The number of current or former governors already slated to speak at the Republican National Convention. With Congress facing a record-low approval rating, Mitt Romney, a former governor, is making a clear effort to feature Republicans who have built their reputations outside of Washington. Speeches about what is wrong with D.C. probably will not be in short supply in Tampa.
2The number of negative TV ads Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has released against Rep. Todd Akin since he won the Republican nomination on Tuesday. Akin's uncompromising social conservatism and unpredictable streak give Democrats hope in a race that the GOP has been heavily favored to win. McCaskill is wasting no time trying to alienate Akin from moderate voters.
66The percentage of the vote Kerry Bentivolio received Tuesday in Michigan's 11th District Republican primary. The win by Bentivolio, an outside-the-mainstream candidate who has acted in a "truther" film about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, is a boon for Democrats, who are poised to compete for the seat formerly held by Republican Thaddeus McCotter. The district gave President Obama about 51 percent of the vote in 2008.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO REPUBLICANS
Democrats took a beating for a controversial ad. The pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action launched an ad in which a man who was laid off when Bain Capital took over his company essentially blames Mitt Romney for his wife's death (she had cancer diagnosed and lacked insurance). But the backlash was swift. The media labeled the ad false, and the White House and the Obama campaign, which have encouraged donations to the super PAC, were put in the awkward position of distancing themselves from the ad.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO DEMOCRATS
Movement in the polls. President Obama expanded his lead nationally to as much as 7 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research survey and 9 percent in a Fox News poll. Democrats credited Mitt Romney's gaffe-filled foreign trip and their own effective campaign advertisements, but Republicans said that was folly, pointing out that few are paying attention to politics during the Olympic Games.
- Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan
LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1300 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 13, 2012 Monday 5:06 PM EST
The 25-day fight to define Paul Ryan;
The time between today and the end of the Democratic National Convention will tell us how smart or dumb Mitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan really was.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1148 words
In 25 days, we'll likely know whether Mitt Romney picking Paul Ryan was a savvy strategy to make the November election about big ideas or a fizzled failure that collapsed under the weight of the controversial budget proposals put forward by the Wisconsin Republican.
That's the amount of time between today and Sept. 7, the day after the Democratic National Convention concludes in Charlotte, N.C. Between now and then Ryan will have barnstormed the country - he is in Iowa today - and both parties will have had a chance to make their (heavily orchestrated) cases to the American public at their respective conventions.
At the center of the fight to define Ryan - and the Republican ticket and party more broadly - is the portion of his budget blueprint that would fundamentally alter Medicare, long a political don't-touch-under-any-circumstances issue for both parties.
In an interview with CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday, both Romney and Ryan were careful to emphasize that Ryan's proposal would allow older people - one of the most critical voting blocs in the coming election - to keep their current Medicare but would give younger people more choices.
Ryan even sought to personalize the Medicare issue during the Schieffer sitdown, noting that "my mom is a Medicare senior in Florida." Ryan will also travel to Florida this coming weekend to make the case for his Medicare proposal in the proverbial belly of the political beast, a trip that Romney campaign officials are quick to note is a sign that they are preparing to play offense on the issue.
They'll need it, as there is mounds of polling data that suggest any talk of changes to Medicare - even if they won't impact those currently covered by the program - is politically perilous.
Nearly eight in 10 people opposed reducing Medicare benefits as a way to reduce the deficit - including 73 percent of political independents - in a recent Washington Post- Kaiser Family Foundation poll.
Almost six in 10 said they would prefer Medicare to remain exactly as it is, while just 36 percent said they would rather it "be changed to a system in which the government guarantees each senior a fixed amount of money to help them purchase coverage either from traditional Medicare or from a list of private health plans."
In addition to those poll numbers, the Obama campaign is in the midst of an all-out assault to define Ryan - and by extension Romney - as someone who wants to get rid of Medicare entirely.
A web video released by the Obama campaign this morning features Florida seniors decrying the Ryan proposal on Medicare; "If we cut it now, what's going to happen to our middle class?" asks one woman.
Obama campaign senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday that Ryan's proposed overhaul of Medicare would put the program in a "death spiral".
At the heart of the battle to define Ryan, his budget and what it would do to Medicare is whether he/it is viewed symbolically as a sort of "serious times require serious people and hard decisions" sentiment or whether he/it is viewed literally as an uncaring ideologue pushing his conservative agenda no matter the human cost.
That's the fight of the next 25 days. It's hard to overestimate how critical the outcome is to who wins this fall.
Romney and Ryan defend Medicare provisions: Here's a taste of how Romney and Ryan talked about Medicare in their sitdown with "60 Minutes" on Sunday:
"There's only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare," Romney said.
Ryan added: "My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida. Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they've organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms."
This is a preview of the GOP's pushback messaging: noting Obama's own cuts to Medicare, GOP efforts to save it, and the fact that the proposal doesn't affect current beneficiaries.
Hirono to face Lingle in Hawaii: Rep. Mazie Hirono easily won the Democratic nomination in the Hawaii Senate race on Saturday, setting up a rematch with former governor Linda Lingle (R) in November.
Hirono defeated former congressman Ed Case 58 percent to 41 percent thanks to a large financial advantage and the unspoken backing of the national Democratic Party, which saw her as the better general election candidate.
The Lingle-Hirono matchup comes 10 years after Lingle defeated Hirono in the 2002 governor's race. This time, with the presidential race on the ballot and Obama expected to win it by a huge margin, Hirono starts as the favorite.
In the race for Hirono's seat, Honolulu City Councilwoman Tulsi Gabbard won the Democratic nomination over former Honolulu mayor Mufi Hannemann and is now set to become the first Hindu in Congress.
Fixbits:
Obama adviser David Axelrod was pressed on the controversial Priorities USA ad again Sunday. He said the ad doesn't blame Romney for the death of Joe Soptic's wife.
Romney has raised millions since announcing Ryan as his pick.
Sarah Palin announces she will not be speaking at the Republican National Convention.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is up with a $1.1 million ad buy in Missouri hitting Rep. Todd Akin (R) for saying he doesn't like Social Security.
Arizona Senate candidate Wil Cardon is back on the air after going dark for a few days - but barely. The lack of air coverage suggests the self-funding Cardon may be losing hope of defeating Rep. Jeff Flake in the upcoming primary and opting not to throw good money after bad.
Flake reportedly calls for an end to direct election of senators.
The New Hampshire Union Leader endorses Ovide Lamontagne for the Republican nomination for governor.
Brendan Mullen, the Democrat running for Senate candidate Rep. Joe Donnelly's (D-Ind.) seat, debuts a new bio ad.
Must-reads:
"When Mitt Romney settled on Paul Ryan and how he kept it a secret" - Philip Rucker, Washington Post
"Why Ryan Could Make a Romney Victory Harder" - Ronald Brownstein, National Journal
"Paul Ryan loved Ayn Rand, before he said he didn't" - James Rainey, Los Angeles Times
"Ryan could be a drag on Romney in Florida" - Marc Caputo, Miami Herald
"Liberal Wyden's partnership with Ryan becomes a GOP talking point" - Jason Horowitz, Washington Post
"Federal workers fret about jobs as sequestration looms" - Steve Vogel and Timothy R. Smith, Washington Post
"Paul Ryan donations from a now-convicted Wis. businessman could draw fire" - Jerry Markon, Washington Post
"Romney Picked Ryan Over Advisers' Early Doubts" - Ben Smith, BuzzFeed
"As Ryan Looks to Focus on Economy, Spotlight Shines on His Other Views" - Robert Pear, New York Times
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1301 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 13, 2012 Monday
Suburban Edition
Across the aisle, Wyden's a hit
BYLINE: Jason Horowitz
SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C08
LENGTH: 919 words
Senator Ron Wyden, a lifelong liberal Democrat from Oregon, has emerged as a key Republican talking point in the 2012 presidential election.
In his proud pursuit of creative, if politically implausible, policy initiatives, Wyden has in the past teamed up with the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the newly anointed Republican vice presidential candidate. Their collaboration on a Medicare reform proposal helped cement Wyden's reputation as a "King of Policy Wonks," as he is sometimes dismissively referred to within his caucus. And it also has given Republicans some cover on the campaign trail.
Now, no less a Republican standard bearer than Mitt Romney, the GOP's presidential nominee-in-waiting, is invoking Wyden as evidence of his new running mate's crossover appeal.
Speaking about the Ryan-Wyden proposal at a Saturday rally at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Va., Romney said that Ryan "found a Democrat to co-lead a piece of legislation to make sure we can save Medicare."
In Manassas, Romney explicitly name-checked Wyden to argue that Ryan actually wanted to save Medicare where President Obama and Democrats wanted to slash it. "Paul Ryan and Senator Wyden said, 'No, we need to restore, retain and protect Medicare,' " Romney said. "That's what our party will do."
Wyden is apparently displeased about his sudden prominence as a validator of the Republican ticket.
"Governor Romney is talking nonsense," Wyden said in a statement to reporters Saturday night. He based most of his objection to Romney's remarks on semantics, saying his proposal with Ryan was not legislation but "a policy paper."
That is not an explanation that his fellow Democrats find persuasive.
"He got used," said one Senate Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about how Wyden is seen among Democrats in the Senate.
A common view of Wyden within his own caucus is of a man who holds himself out as an intellectually superior renegade who is above the constraints of politics. That self-regard, and a tendency toward peevishness, sometimes leads him to stake out positions that are politically inconvenient to his party. The chief effect of his collaboration with Ryan has been to boost the Republican vice presidential candidate's bipartisan bona fides and to give the Romney campaign a data point to distract voters from the more politically charged vision of Medicare offered in Ryan's budget proposal.
By inviting Ryan onto the ticket, Romney energized his base and focused the national debate more squarely on fiscal issues. But he also attached himself to the man the Obama campaign and Democrats will continue to attack as the embodiment of the threat to Medicare's existence. (One ad depicted Ryan as physically pushing a senior citizen in a wheelchair off a cliff.)
Ryan's 2011 deficit-slashing budget proposal elevated him to a tea party hero and marked him as a Democratic bogeyman. The Wisconsin congressman subsequently offered a more moderate approach, perhaps in an effort to soften his image and boost his party's fortunes. Wyden, to the horror of his own party, helped him do that. While Ryan's original legislation proposed giving seniors federal dollars to purchase private health coverage, the Wyden-Ryan proposal was more politically palatable, giving seniors a choice between traditional Medicare and expanded private coverage.
The White House said the plan would nevertheless "end Medicare as we know it." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other House Democrats said it would essentially kill Medicare. Republican leaders, aware they had just received a gift from across the aisle, exressed markedly less criticism. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called it "a bipartisan idea that's worthy of our consideration." Newt Gingrich, who called Ryan's original plan "right-wing social engineering," tweeted that the "Wyden-Ryan bipartisan Medicare reform plan is a major breakthrough." Romney, who had called the original Ryan plan "marvelous," himself proposed a similar plan. Now he hopes the Wyden-Ryan collaboration complicates Democrats' otherwise laser-clear line of attack on his running mate, and, by association, him.
Senate Democrats, while doubtful at best about the wisdom of Wyden's joint effort with Ryan, are not about to let it dissuade them from targeting the would-be vice president for what they claim is a hard-line and heartless budget proposal.
"It's not going to put any chilling effect on Democrats going after Ryan," said the Democratic operative. "No one is going to restrain their criticism of the Ryan plan based on the fact that Ron Wyden signed on to a version of it."
It's not the first time Democrats have questioned Wyden's political acumen or wondered whether he wasn't exploiting his reputation as a bipartisan ideas man to stay in office.
In 2010, Wyden, in search of an issue to bolster his bipartisan credentials and stave off conservative challengers back home, connected with Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) on a bill to tweak President Obama's health-care overhaul. That proposal, although unsuccessful, helped him get reelected. It is also now part of Brown's bipartisan credentials in running for reelection in liberal Massachusetts.
Teaming up with Wyden hasn't always been a blessing for Republicans. Utah's three-term Republican senator, Robert F. Bennett, joined with Wyden to sponsor a health-care bill - a move that infuriated tea party activists and other conservatives, who promptly bounced Bennett from office.
horowitzj@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1302 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 13, 2012 Monday
Suburban Edition
Speaking conservatives' language
BYLINE: George F. Will
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 769 words
When, in his speech accepting the 1964 Republican presidential nomination, Barry Goldwater said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue," a media wit at the convention supposedly exclaimed, "Good God, Goldwater is going to run as Goldwater." When Mitt Romney decided to run with Paul Ryan, many conservatives may have thought, "Thank God, Romney is not going to run as Romney."
Not, that is, as the Romney who 12 months ago, warily eyeing Iowa, refused to say a discouraging word about the ethanol debacle. Rather, he is going to run as the Romney who, less than two weeks before announcing Ryan, told the states - Iowa prominent among them - that he opposes extending the wind energy production tax credit, which expires soon.
This may seem a minor matter, as well as an obvious and easy decision for a conservative. The wind tax credit is, after all, industrial policy, the government picking winners and losers in defiance of market signals - industrial policy always is a refusal to heed the market's rejection of that which the government singles out for favoritism. But ethanol subsidies also are industrial policy. And just a few days after Romney got the wind subsidy right, more than half of the 11 Republican senators on the Finance Committee got it wrong, voting to extend it. So even before choosing Ryan, Romney was siding with what might, with a nod to Howard Dean, be called the Republican wing of the Republican Party. For Romney, conservatism is a second language, but he speaks it with increasing frequency and fluency.
Romney embraced Ryan after the sociopathic - indifferent to the truth - ad for Barack Obama that is meretricious about every important particular of the death from cancer of the wife of steelworker Joe Soptic. Obama's desperate flailing about to justify four more years has sunk into such unhinged smarminess that Romney may have concluded: There is nothing Obama won't say about me, because he has nothing to say for himself, so I will chose a running mate whose seriousness about large problems and ideas underscores what the president has become - silly and small.
He on whose behalf the Soptic ad was made used to dispense bromides deploring "the smallness of our politics" and "our preference for scoring cheap political points." Obama's campaign of avoidance - say anything to avoid the subject of the country's condition - must now reckon with Ryan's mastery of Obama's enormous addition to decades of governmental malpractice.
Obama is, by now, nothing if not predictable, so prepare for pieties deploring Ryan's brand of "extremism" that has supplanted responsible conservatism. Goldwater, quoted above, infuriated the sort of people who, regardless of what flavor of conservatism is in fashion, invariably purse their lips and sorrowfully say: "We think conservatism is a valuable thread in our national fabric, etc., but not this kind of conservatism." Goldwater's despisers did not recognize his echo of words by Martin Luther King Jr. 15 months earlier.
In his "Letter From Birmingham Jail," King wrote, "You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. . . . But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love. . . . Was not Amos an extremist for justice. . . . Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel. . . . Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
Remember this episode when you hear, ad nauseam, that Ryan is directly, and Romney now is derivatively, an extremist for believing (a) that "ending Medicare as we know it" will be done by arithmetic if it is not done by creative reforms of the sort Ryan proposes, and (b) that the entitlement state's crisis cannot be cured, as Obama suggests, by adding 4.6 points to the tax rate paid by less than 3 percent of Americans.
When Ryan said in Norfolk, "We won't replace our Founding principles, we will reapply them," he effectively challenged Obama to say what Obama believes, which is: Madison was an extremist in enunciating the principles of limited government - the enumeration and separation of powers. And Jefferson was an extremist in asserting that government exists not to grant rights but to "secure" natural rights that pre-exist government.
Romney's selection of a running mate was, in method and outcome, presidential. It underscores how little in the last four years merits that adjective.
georgewill@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1303 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 13, 2012 Monday
Suburban Edition
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 427 words
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"If you could depend on the government for one thing, it was that you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this [Republican Party] is the E. coli club. They do not want to spend money to do that."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaking at a fundraiser for a House candidate in Boca Raton, Fla.
BY THE NUMBERS
9The number of current or former governors already slated to speak at the Republican National Convention. With Congress facing a record-low approval rating, Mitt Romney, a former governor, is making a clear effort to feature Republicans who have built their reputations outside of Washington. Speeches about what is wrong with D.C. probably will not be in short supply in Tampa.
2The number of negative TV ads Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has released against Rep. Todd Akin since he won the Republican nomination on Tuesday. Akin's uncompromising social conservatism and unpredictable streak give Democrats hope in a race that the GOP has been heavily favored to win. McCaskill is wasting no time trying to alienate Akin from moderate voters.
66The percentage of the vote Kerry Bentivolio received Tuesday in Michigan's 11th District Republican primary. The win by Bentivolio, an outside-the-mainstream candidate who has acted in a "truther" film about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, is a boon for Democrats, who are poised to compete for the seat formerly held by Republican Thaddeus McCotter. The district gave President Obama about 51 percent of the vote in 2008.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO REPUBLICANS
Democrats took a beating for a controversial ad. The pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action launched an ad in which a man who was laid off when Bain Capital took over his company essentially blames Mitt Romney for his wife's death (she had cancer diagnosed and lacked insurance). But the backlash was swift. The media labeled the ad false, and the White House and the Obama campaign, which have encouraged donations to the super PAC, were put in the awkward position of distancing themselves from the ad.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO DEMOCRATS
Movement in the polls. President Obama expanded his lead nationally to as much as 7 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research survey and 9 percent in a Fox News poll. Democrats credited Mitt Romney's gaffe-filled foreign trip and their own effective campaign advertisements, but Republicans said that was folly, pointing out that few are paying attention to politics during the Olympic Games.
- Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan
LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1304 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Running Mate Is an Upbeat Budget Cutter, Eager to Joust With Democrats
BYLINE: By ROBERT PEAR
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 12
LENGTH: 811 words
WASHINGTON -- Representative Paul D. Ryan, the 42-year-old Republican named on Saturday as Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate, is idolized by young conservatives in the House, who see him as a role model and a polished spokesman for their vision of America.Many Republicans come across as dour budget cutters with contempt for Democrats. Mr. Ryan shares the politics of his conservative colleagues, but appears instead as an optimist who relishes the opportunity to debate policy with Democrats.
Mr. Ryan was first elected to Congress in 1998, at the age of 28, the youngest member of that incoming class. He vaulted to the top ranks of his party and became chairman of the Budget Committee because he knew the ropes, studied the issues and could explain conservative tax-cutting and budget-cutting policies in lucid terms. It has never been enough for him to attack Democrats and their proposals. He has always been eager to propose and defend alternatives, even at significant political risk to himself and his party.
He is hardly a typical committee chairman, a role often played in the House by grizzled old men. An avid hunter, skier and mountaineer, Mr. Ryan listens to heavy metal and indulges in a grueling fitness regimen. At the House gym, he encourages other members to do the same as he coaches them on the intricacies of the federal budget.
Mr. Ryan is fluent -- Democrats would say glib -- in discussing the complex details of health policy.
As Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Ryan has proposed huge changes in entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, changes that would help the federal government predict and control its costs but could shift some costs to beneficiaries and to states.
He would convert the federal share of Medicaid into a block grant, giving each state a lump sum with which to care for low-income people. States would have much more discretion over how to use the money.
To rein in Medicare costs, Mr. Ryan proposes to increase the age of eligibility, cap the growth in costs and have the government give a fixed amount of money to each beneficiary to help buy private insurance.
Democrats said the plan would destroy Medicare. Mr. Ryan did not back off. He tweaked his proposal. He would preserve the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program as an option for beneficiaries, but would force it to compete directly with commercial insurance plans.
In 2010, Mr. Ryan issued a ''Roadmap for America's Future'' that would have allowed workers under 55 to invest more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.
The plan would have simplified the tax code, abolishing many tax breaks and eliminating taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains.
Mr. Ryan is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes, trade and Medicare.
Some Democrats call Mr. Ryan a fiscal phony, saying that by cutting taxes for corporations and the rich, he would perpetuate the deficit. President Obama recently described Mr. Ryan's budget plan as ''an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country'' and ''thinly veiled social Darwinism.''
In 2010, Mr. Ryan wrote a book with Representatives Eric Cantor of Virginia, now the House majority leader, and Kevin McCarthy of California, the party whip, setting forth their vision, ''Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders.''
The editors of Human Events named Mr. Ryan ''Conservative of the Year'' for 2011.
But on Medicare and fiscal policy, he has sometimes worked with Democrats like Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Alice M. Rivlin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Paul Davis Ryan was born in Janesville, Wis., on Jan. 29, 1970, the youngest of four children of Paul and Elizabeth Ryan. He was 16 when his father died of a heart attack. That is one reason, he has said, for his own devotion to physical fitness.
His brother Tobin Ryan said, ''The death of my father had an enormous impact on accelerating his development.''
Mr. Ryan has been quoted as saying that his family received Social Security survivor benefits after his father's death, and that he used some of the money to help pay for college. So, he says, he appreciates the value of the program.
Mr. Ryan received a B.A. in economics and political science from Miami University in Ohio in 1992 and went to work as an aide to Senator Bob Kasten, Republican of Wisconsin. From 1993 to 1995, he worked at Empower America, a group organized by former Representative Jack F. Kemp of New York and others.
From 1995 to 1997, Mr. Ryan worked as a top aide to Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who was then a member of Congress and is now governor.
Before being elected, he worked at Ryan Inc. Central, a construction company founded by his great-grandfather in 1884.
Mr. Ryan and his wife, Janna, have three children, Liza, Charlie and Sam.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/politics/running-mate-paul-ryan-is-an-upbeat-budget-cutter-eager-to-joust-with-democrats.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: LEADING ROLE: Representative Paul D. Ryan on his way to the Capitol. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK WILSON/GETTY IMAGES)
YOUNG VOICE: At the Republican National Convention in 2004. (PHOTOGRAPH BY VINCENT LAFORET/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PROPOSING ALTERNATIVES: After a meeting with voters in southern Wisconsin. (PHOTOGRAPH BY DARREN HAUCK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
THE OPPOSITION: During the State of the Union address this year. (PHOTOGRAPH BY BRENDAN HOFFMAN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1305 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Ryan Pick Gives President Chance to Change Subject
BYLINE: By PETER BAKER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 15
LENGTH: 1137 words
The selection of Representative Paul D. Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate provides President Obama with something he has been eagerly looking for -- a bigger target.A race that has revolved, at least in part, around each month's mediocre jobs report and Mr. Obama's persistent failure to move unemployment below 8 percent will now allow Democrats new lines of attack -- starting with the assertion that Republicans are intent on dismantling Medicare -- while setting off a larger debate about the role of government in the economy and society.
For Mr. Obama, that seems more promising territory, a chance to press the offensive against his challengers rather than just defend his record. Instead of a referendum on his own performance, the president has an opening to turn the election into a referendum on the vision that Mr. Ryan has advanced and Mitt Romney has adopted.
That strategy may put Mr. Obama, a self-declared agent of hope and change four years ago, in the awkward position of seeming to be the defender of a status quo that is not working, or at least not working well enough. He risks having Republicans seize the mantle of reform that he used so skillfully in 2008 by contrasting his stay-the-course incumbent's message with the youthful Mr. Ryan's energetic willingness to tear up the old order and reinvent it for troubled times.
After months of Mr. Obama hammering Mr. Romney's prescriptions for the country as too radical, Mr. Ryan's addition to the ticket will sharpen what already had been shaping up as the starkest contrast over domestic policy in any presidential race in a generation. The president and his liberal allies wasted little time on Saturday rolling out their attacks on Mr. Ryan as an avatar of extremism who would cut health care for old people to finance tax cuts for the rich.
''The architect of the radical Republican House budget,'' declared Jim Messina, the president's campaign manager. ''Catering to the Tea Party and the far right,'' said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader. ''Puts millionaires ahead of Medicare and the middle class,'' asserted Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who leads the Democratic minority in the House.
Within an hour or so of Mr. Romney's announcement, the Obama campaign posted a Web video labeling the Republican ticket the ''Go Back Team,'' a reference to policies of the past. Fund-raising appeals with targeted messages went out in swing states, like one in Ohio saying that Mr. Ryan ''followed in the footsteps of his mentor,'' John Kasich, the state's governor, with ''a radical, ideological budget.'' Liberal interest groups, labor unions and women's organizations began rolling out their own long-planned attacks.
The president's political strategists were focusing on Florida, already a swing state but now perhaps ground zero for attacks on Mr. Ryan's plans to restructure Medicare, while monitoring Wisconsin to see if the Republicans tried to invest in Mr. Ryan's home state. Congressional election strategists were mapping out plans to force every Republican candidate for the House and Senate to own or disown Mr. Ryan's budget plan.
''This is the perfect choice for us to finish our frame of Romney,'' said Eddie Vale, a spokesman for Workers' Voice, an A.F.L.-C.I.O. ''super PAC.'' ''What Romney and Bain did to working families and companies is what Romney and Ryan would do to all Americans.''
Bill Burton, one of the founders of Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC, said his group had always planned to devote the fall to tying Mr. Romney to Mr. Ryan's budget plan, but had worried that it might not stick.
''From the beginning when we polled, we found that the Ryan plan was the most toxic political document ever, but the problem was you couldn't convince voters that any politician would actually support it,'' Mr. Burton said. ''Now this actually makes the job easier.''
Stanley B. Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said that surveys showed attacks on the Ryan plan moved voters dramatically, adding that Mr. Romney could no longer dance around it. ''There is no longer a nuance to that debate,'' he said. ''There are a lot of white, working-class voters, particularly older ones, who will walk away now, even if tempted earlier by the slow economy.''
Mr. Obama has long suffered from a sizable generation gap. In 2008, he did poorest among those 60 and older, winning the votes of 47 percent of them compared with 66 percent of voters under 30. With polls showing younger voters less enthusiastic and less likely to turn out this year, Mr. Obama's campaign has struggled to win over seniors, who are much more reliable voters.
John Rother, president and chief executive of the National Coalition on Health Care, an advocacy group, said older voters drifted even further away from Mr. Obama during the 2010 midterm elections after Republicans attacked the Medicare cuts incorporated into his broader health care program.
''Now, Democrats can run practically the same ad accusing Ryan of proposing a plan that would 'gut Medicare' and shift costs to seniors,'' Mr. Rother said.
The Romney camp said Democrats were fooling themselves. ''The race is now framed exactly as we want it,'' said Kevin Madden, a senior Romney adviser. ''Voters are going to judge our current struggling economy and President Obama's lack of leadership on that issue very harshly, and then look at a Romney-Ryan ticket as an opportunity to take the country in a bold new direction towards a better future.''
The looming clash reflects an intriguing evolution from just two years ago, when Mr. Obama expressed a grudging admiration for Mr. Ryan, another young politician with big ideas. Asked in the fall of 2010 which Republicans he could envision working with in the next Congress, Mr. Obama mentioned only one who would still be around, Mr. Ryan.
He said Mr. Ryan was ''absolutely sincere about wanting to reduce the deficit,'' though he quarreled with his approach. ''I give him credit for at least being willing to put out there some tough choices,'' Mr. Obama said, ''although, as I said, even there, the numbers don't quite match up the way they should.''
What Mr. Obama found appealing, the notion of a man of ideas willing to make tough choices, is what he now will need to devalue him. While Democrats openly crowed that Mr. Ryan was the choice they had hoped for because of the sharp contrast, they acknowledged he is a young, attractive, well-spoken politician who explains his plan better than his fellow Republicans do. If he makes the issue the national debt that has risen so much under Mr. Obama, rather than his solution for it, Mr. Ryan could pose a serious challenge to the president.
In other words, to put the bull's-eye on Mr. Ryan's back, Mr. Obama will first have to get it off his own.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/politics/ryan-pick-gives-obama-chance-to-change-subject.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Campaigning against Paul D. Ryan offers risks and opportunities for President Obama, who was in Chicago on Saturday. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MANUEL BALCE CENETA/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1306 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Sunday Dialogue: Daring to Tell the Truth
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Editorial Desk; LETTERS; Pg. 2
LENGTH: 2154 words
Would voters reward or punish honesty in politics?The Letter
To the Editor:
The title character of Warren Beatty's 1998 film ''Bulworth'' is a politician so fed up with how leaders are elected in this country that he decides to do the unthinkable: tell the truth during his own re-election bid. This crazy idea is presented as the stuff of comedy.
But it's no laughing matter: Americans have all but given up hope about the possibility of honesty in politics. In Gallup's annual poll regarding professional ethics, politicians routinely rank near or at the bottom of the list. What should be one of the most noble of all callings -- enriching the lives of others through responsible leadership -- has devolved into nasty strategizing about how to get and keep power.
As we near the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, it is time for President Obama and Mitt Romney to commit themselves to being truthful in their stump speeches, advertisements, media interviews and all other aspects of their campaigns.
Each has a lot of work to do. A recent Times article, ''The Other Rivals: Fact and Interpretation,'' described the many ways that both the president and Mr. Romney have misrepresented the facts in their public presentations. Both camps must stop this shameful practice immediately.
From here on out, the primary question each man should ask is not, ''How can I distort my opponent's track record and my own to my advantage?'' but rather, ''What is my vision for America, and how can I represent it most accurately?''
I realize that a call for truth-telling in politics may be dismissed as unrealistic and naïve. But with so much at stake in our nation's future, we can no longer afford the luxury of cynicism.
Why can't 2012 be the year that ethical intelligence rather than unbridled ambition fuels the race for the White House?
BRUCE WEINSTEIN New York, Aug. 6, 2012
The writer is the author of ''Ethical Intelligence'' and ''Is It Still Cheating if I Don't Get Caught?''
Readers React
In my 40-plus years living in Washington, I have had the opportunity to know many politicians.
Politicians do not tell the truth because they get punished for doing so. Remember the 1984 presidential campaign in which Walter Mondale, the Democratic candidate, said that both he and Ronald Reagan would raise taxes, but that he was willing to say so while his opponent was not? Remember who won that election?
From virtually our country's beginning, politicians have been distorting their opponents' records.
What is happening today is hardly new; it just feels that way.
Mr. Weinstein's suggestions are naïve. Wouldn't a better approach be to simply acknowledge reality and deal with that?
MARC CHAFETZ Washington, Aug. 8, 2012
No one could disagree with Mr. Weinstein in theory; of course we all want honesty, especially from those with power over our lives. But two deep practical problems make it hard to see this as more than a cri de coeur.
First, while outright lies are clearly wrong and easy to spot, much political speech consists of selective use of facts: highlighting some, obscuring or ignoring others.
Second, even if the candidates and their campaigns committed to no distortions and no negative campaigning, ''independent'' organizations can and will surely continue to engage in harsh, slanted negative campaigning, and under the law the candidates can't control these entities.
A more practical solution may be for the population to treat political campaigning as a variant of commercial advertising and learn how to read for gaps and distortions. Advertisers and campaigners will shade the truth, or worse, until we have developed the skills that make that kind of speech ineffective.
MARY COOMBS Miami, Aug. 8, 2012
The writer is a professor at University of Miami School of Law.
So why not a brutally honest politician running for the office of president?
My response is from Jack Nicholson's character in the movie ''A Few Good Men'': ''You can't handle the truth.''
And that is really the truth. The public would never accept utter honesty from a candidate. Utter honesty eliminates hope for a happy and successful world right around the corner. People don't want to hear that from political candidates.
MICHAEL J. GORMAN Whitestone, Queens, Aug. 8, 2012
I am a minor-party candidate in the Aug. 28 primary in Arizona's Fourth Congressional District. In 2010 I was a Green Party candidate for Congress and received about 1.4 percent of the vote. I don't expect to do any better this year, but at least a hopeless candidate like me can behave like the honest politicians Mr. Weinstein longs to see.
Most of us ''hopeless'' honest politicians are ridiculed or ignored, but we persevere. Since I don't care whether I get 1 vote or 100, I have nothing to lose by being honest. What I do care about, deeply, is fixing America.
Frankly, I don't know how I would change my campaign tactics if I had a chance to win, so I suspect Mr. Weinstein will continue to have to search hard and long for the kind of honest politician he is seeking.
RICHARD GRAYSON Apache Junction, Ariz., Aug. 8, 2012
Mr. Weinstein's letter lamenting the lack of honesty in politics misses one important point: Attack ads work, and as long as they work, they will be continued. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads in 2004 that helped defeat John Kerry are a perfect example.
Polls have shown that voting is often based on emotions, and the attack ads appeal to those emotions. I am not absolving Mitt Romney and President Obama for their ads, but are they to blame, or the public for its thirst for and response to such advertising?
And now with the super PACs, the attack ads will only get worse.
ROBERT H. SCHURK Greendale, Wis., Aug. 8, 2012
Methinks the quality of the candidates determines the campaign tactics. When the voters have to choose between the lesser of two evils, honesty takes a hike. When voters have two candidates who are both ''Wow!'' candidates, honesty gets a chance.
GEORGE PETERNEL Arlington Heights, Ill., Aug. 8, 2012
According to Mr. Weinstein, politics has ''devolved'' into its current state.
However, one can search in vain for any time in American history when distortions of the truth and even outright lies during political campaigns, including presidential ones, were not the norm. Andrew Jackson was labeled a murderer, William Jennings Bryan a dangerous radical who would destroy capitalism and Al Smith the secret emissary of a Catholic cabal.
There are two differences between the past and the present. At one time the public had to read a newspaper or at least a handbill to see the lies. Now anyone who turns on the television in a swing state in a presidential election can't escape them.
The other difference: Into the beginning of the 20th century it was not unusual for politicians to take personal umbrage at what they felt were slurs on their characters and go after those they felt were behind them with a gun. At least in that regard we have actually evolved.
STEVEN A. KING New York, Aug. 9, 2012
The topic of lying among democratic leaders raises fundamental questions: Is it ever permissible for a political or governmental figure to lie? If so, how does society judge whether the untruth was justified? And finally, if lying is occasionally warranted, is it ever acceptable from a candidate?
These questions have been the subject of philosophical debate for centuries. At one extreme is Niccolò Machiavelli, noting that prudent rulers cannot -- indeed, ''must not'' -- honor their word when it disadvantages them.
In contrast, some contemporary ethicists have gone to the other extreme. Sissela Bok suggests that governments should avoid commenting on controversial matters to prevent the necessity, or impulse toward, convenient untruths. And the political theorist Maureen Ramsay argues that each lie, even to protect public safety or national security, tears at our social fabric.
Nevertheless, Ms. Ramsay entertains a ''just lie'' theory, much like the just war theory, that sets certain criteria for official lying: It should avert a more significant harm than telling the truth, be used as a last resort, and have a reasonable chance of success. Still, if we accept this realistic approach to our leaders' commitment to truth after they take office, does it apply to candidates' fabrications?
To a certain extent, members of the public will find the misrememberings, omissions and inventions of the candidates they are inclined to support more believable than those they oppose, though it is rare to see a candidate for high office knocked out of a race simply for uttering an untruth or two.
Indeed, the public may have come to accept the reality that politicians must deviate from the truth from time to time to get elected. Or maybe, as Machiavelli observed, we humans ''are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived.''
LYNN PASQUERELLA South Hadley, Mass., Aug. 9, 2012
The writer is president of Mount Holyoke College and co-editor of ''Ethical Dilemmas in Public Administration.''
Mr. Weinstein has a greater chance of seeing the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy doing the hora in downtown Cairo than he does of witnessing a campaign characterized by ''ethical intelligence.''
The blame for the deluge of dishonesty and dastardly deeds that currently dominates political discourse falls clearly at the feet of the Republican Party. Republicans inaugurated the recent trend of vitriol with their infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. These ads were patently untruthful in content and seriously damaged John Kerry's prospects. The billionaires Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers finance the slew of ads we now see that misrepresent facts and take phrases out of context in the effort to besmirch President Obama.
While the Democratic Party is certainly not blameless, it clearly lags the G.O.P. when it comes to dirty tricks. So, Mr. Weinstein, while I share your wish for a clean debate on the important issues of the day, I'm not holding my breath and neither should you.
BILL GOTTDENKER Mountainside, N.J., Aug. 8, 2012
Perhaps Mr. Weinstein is correct that ''a call for truth-telling in politics may be dismissed as unrealistic and naïve.'' But the bigger question is, Can the public handle the truth? Given the low level of discourse in politics, right now voters can't even handle the lies because they lack the necessary filters to help them understand the key points.
Much of the fault rests with our media, which in the recent years have drifted into solid left and right camps and can't be trusted to provide dissection of the murky outpourings from all political parties.
Unfortunately, there is no good reason for politicians to tell the truth. To quote Mark Twain, ''Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.'' And right now the politicians don't consider the American public to be worthy.
BARRY GILES Watsonville, Calif., Aug. 8, 2012
The Writer Responds
It doesn't surprise me to see so many cynical responses. As Mr. Chafetz states, lying in politics is nothing new, so it's easy to see why the majority of the writers have a jaundiced view of the political landscape.
The problem with cynicism is that it presumes the worst about human nature: that we're incapable of making changes for the better. This presumption isn't merely depressing, but also demonstrably false.
Imagine how much of the country would have responded in 1940 if you had announced, ''One day schools, workplaces and restaurants will be racially integrated.''
Mr. Gorman's statement that ''utter honesty eliminates hope for a happy and successful world right around the corner'' is entirely fitting -- for a dictatorship. It's anathema to a participatory government.
Of course, there are limits to the obligation to tell the truth, as Ms. Pasquerella observes. The film ''The Invention of Lying'' humorously reveals the folly of always telling the truth in social situations. But it's not just relationships with one's co-workers, friends and family members that can benefit from the withholding of information that is true but hurtful; maintaining national security sometimes requires preventing sensitive information from becoming public.
Honesty isn't the only moral virtue worth reclaiming in politics, and it's not even the most important one. That honor goes to fairness, since the obscene amount of money spent by super PACs, duly noted by Mr. Schurk, risks selling our democracy to the highest bidder.
Even if a commitment to telling the truth isn't sufficient to bring ethical intelligence to bear in our political system, it is both necessary and long overdue.
Who knows -- perhaps voters will reward the presidential candidate who runs his campaign more honestly. That should be reason enough for both President Obama and Mitt Romney to make truth-telling the hallmark of the remainder of their campaigns.
BRUCE WEINSTEIN New York, Aug. 9, 2012
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-daring-to-tell-the-truth.html
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: DRAWING (DRAWING BY JOÃO FAZENDA)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letter
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1307 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Paul Ryan's Liberal Fan Club
BYLINE: THOMAS B. EDSALL
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 2400 words
HIGHLIGHT: Strategists at the pro-Obama super PAC are excited to run against the budget proposals of Mitt Romney's running mate.
There is one point on which Democratic strategists and the hard right are united: they fervidly support Mitt Romney's decision to choose Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, as his vice-presidential running mate.
Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who works for the pro-Obama "super PAC" Priorities USA Action, declared in an interview with the Times just before Romney's running mate was unveiled that picking Ryan "would legitimately make the Ryan budget the centerpiece of the Republican platform and Romney would own it from soup to nuts."
Erick Erickson, whose Redstate blog is a force on the right, sounded the warning:
Finally, the Romney campaign has a spokesman who can do what Mitt Romney has never been capable of doing - defend success and articulate a message of why we must reform our nation's budget and support free markets. After all the Romney campaign missteps and flubs of the past few weeks, I am encouraged. But we should be clear here: it is not enough, but it is an excellent start to a reboot.
The editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, National Review and a host of bloggers say that putting Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, on the ticket gives the presidential election the ideological clarity it deserves.
The Wall Street Journal, in an Aug. 8 editorial, "Why Not Paul Ryan?" declared:
Against the advice of every Beltway bedwetter, he has put entitlement reform at the center of the public agenda - before it becomes a crisis that requires savage cuts.
After Ryan was announced, the Journal argued that Romney had in one stroke changed the direction and thrust of the campaign.
Mr. Romney is signaling that he realizes he needs a mandate if he is elected, which means putting his reform ideas before the American people for a clear endorsement. He is treating the public like grown-ups, in contrast to President Obama's focus on divisive and personal character attacks.
From Friday, before the announcement, to Saturday morning just after 9, when it became public knowledge, the mood on the right shifted 180 degrees.
In a column posted on the National Review Web site nine hours before the Ryan pick was broadcast, the conservative polemicist Mark Steyn had nearly written off the Romney campaign:
Romney's insipid message does not rise to the challenge this nation faces. Maybe the milquetoast pantywaist candy-assed soft-focus "Believe in America" shtick will prove sufficient under a relentless barrage of nakedly thuggish attack ads designed to Barry Goldwater the guy. But John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, thinks not: 'This is a race he should be able to win,' he wrote, 'so if he loses, it won't be because Obama won it. It will be because he lost it.' "
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, published a lament along similar lines on Aug. 8:
At times over the past few months, it has seemed that the Romney campaign has embarked on audacious experiment to see if it's possible to run a presidential campaign devoid of real interest.
By the evening of Aug. 11th, however, all doubts had disappeared. A National Review poll of its online readership showed an overjoyed political right: 92 percent of 10,493 "voters" declared that they were "excited about Romney-Ryan."
None were more excited that the editors themselves, who wrote in a lead editorial called "Just the Ticket" that "while Ryan has a national reputation as a budget cutter, he is a full-spectrum conservative."
Both left and right view the Ryan budget as the ticking time bomb of the 2012 election, although they disagree about who will suffer the most political damage when it explodes.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a well-respected liberal think tank, describes the Ryan budget this way:
The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document - one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse - on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history).
The Ryan plan, which has received majority backing twice from Republicans in the House and once from Republicans in the Senate, calls for a major retrenchment of the welfare state.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
Even as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget would impose trillions of dollars in spending cuts, at least 62 percent of which would come from low-income programs, it would enact new tax cuts that would provide huge windfalls to households at the top of the income scale. New analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center finds that people earning more than $1 million a year would receive $265,000 apiece in new tax cuts, on average, on top of the $129,000 they would receive from the Ryan budget's extension of President Bush's tax cuts. The new tax cuts at the top would dwarf those for middle-income families. After-tax incomes would rise by 12.5 percent among millionaires, but just 1.8 percent for middle-income households. Low-income working families would actually be hit with tax increases.
In addition, the budget Ryan presented to the House in April last year called for the elimination of taxes on capital gains and dividend income. Romney pointed out in a January 2012 debate that "Under that plan, I'd have paid no taxes in the last two years."
Even more important, in political terms, those now under 55 would face an utterly transformed Medicare when they reached 65, a health care program that would steadily shift costs to beneficiaries. The Ryan budget would also cap total federal Medicaid spending, which would force sharp reductions in eligibility and coverage.
In an e-mail to the Times, Robert Shapiro, under secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs under President Bill Clinton, wrote:
Medicare is voucherized and then increases at GDP [Gross Domestic Product] growth + 1 percent per -year, versus actual increases in health care costs averaging over the last two decades 5.7%; and Medicaid is block-granted at current levels and grows at the rate of overall inflation - and neither formula takes account of increases in the number of recipients.
Medicaid is currently the single largest source of support for long-term care of the elderly and disabled. While just over three-quarters of Medicaid recipients are children and families receiving basic health coverage, 64 percent of all Medicaid dollars go for the most expensive care (of old people in nursing homes and of the disabled), according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Most of the elderly population is not equipped to absorb higher medical costs. Almost half of those over the age of 65 depend on Social Security for 80 percent or more of their total income. At the start of 2012, the average annual Social Security benefit was $14,760.
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Stephen F. Hayes, a senior writer there, see the cost-cutting Ryan budget as a plus:
Republicans own the Ryan budget. And so does Mitt Romney. The question, it seems to us, is not whether Republicans and their presidential nominee own the Ryan budget, but how they choose to talk about it. Republicans shouldn't worry about having entitlement reform as part of the campaign debate; they should want it there. The 2012 campaign should be about leadership, and about the failure of Barack Obama to provide it on the big issues, including - especially - on entitlement reform, debt, and deficits.
Bill Burton, who was Obama's deputy press secretary and is now a senior strategist at Priorities USA, is delighted to see Romney wrap his arms around Ryan: "The Ryan budget is one of the most toxic documents that a political party has ever embraced," Burton said in a phone interview with The Times (which was also conducted before Ryan was unveiled). When Priorities USA tested reactions to specific provisions of the budget in focus groups, according to Burton, the participants thought the cuts were so draconian that "they couldn't believe a politician would support those policies."
The momentum behind the Ryan plan within the Republican Party is so strong that Romney has had no qualms about giving it his blessing. In a March 22 interview with a Milwaukee radio station, Romney defended the controversial package of budget and tax cuts:
It's time to tell people the truth. And if they want to vote for something less than the truth, that's their right. But I've got a campaign of telling people the truth and I believe the American people are ready for the truth and understand that all of the promises and the attacks and so forth that are part of the political process have to be pushed aside for the truth. And so my campaign's about telling people we've got to cut back on our spending and finally live within our means or we could face economic calamity where what we've gone through over the last three years would look like a cakewalk.
Conservatives joyful over the selection of Ryan contend that whatever damage Democrats can inflict on Romney with the Ryan budget will be more than made up for by two factors: the willingness of the Republican ticket to forthrightly campaign on a detailed economic agenda, and Ryan's appeal to white voters, including many blue-collar and Catholic voters.
Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard argues that a Romney-Ryan ticket will now be equipped to take on the Obama White House:
Mitt Romney, the cautious candidate, wary of being specific, and counting on the bad economy to defeat President Obama - forget all that! The Romney who picked Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate is an entirely different person. He's prepared to take the fight to Obama on the biggest bundle of issues - spending, debt, the deficit, taxes, entitlements, and the reversing of America's accelerating decline under Obama. Specifics? There will be plenty.
National Review stresses Ryan's Catholicism:
One strength he brings to the ticket is a grounding in the social teaching of the Catholic Church, to which he belongs, and a willingness to engage with those who thoughtlessly equate this teaching with support for an ever expanding welfare state. These traits could have more than parochial interest this year, because a disproportionate number of Catholic voters are up for grabs.
The overarching strategy of the Romney campaign is to turn out as many white voters as possible in a contest that may well come down to turnout on Election Day.
The Ryan budget, however, tackles a broad array of domestic social spending, and in slicing Medicare and Medicaid, Ryan's plan imposes harsh costs on a very large proportion of white voters. An overwhelming majority of Medicare recipients, 78 percent, are white. Just 9 percent are black, 8 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Asian-American and 3 percent "other." A solid plurality, 43 percent, of Medicaid recipients are white, 22 percent are black, 28 percent Hispanic and the rest are "other."
A February 2012 study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities of all federal entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program, unemployment insurance, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare), the school lunch program, Earned Income Tax Credit, and the refundable Child Tax Credit - finds that non-Hispanic whites, who make up 64 percent of the nation's population, received 69 percent of the total benefits. Hispanics, who make up 16 percent of the population, received 12 percent of the payments, and blacks, who account for 12 percent of the population, received 14 percent of the benefits.
The Obama campaign and its allies are preparing to show that the Ryan plan will severely cut social insurance programs that not only provide help to poor people, but also to many in the middle class, including millions and millions of whites. The Romney campaign and its supporters, in turn, will try to make the case that these programs go disproportionately to the undeserving (and heavily minority) poor, who should not be subsidized by taxpayer dollars.
Until now, the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA has concentrated its commercials attacking Romney on his stewardship of Bain Capital, especially on decisions by the company to put businesses Bain acquired into bankruptcy, to close plants and to lay off workers. It has done so in part because of the focus group findings that voters were reluctant to believe that a mainstream politician would back the scope of cuts called for in the Ryan proposal.
Those Democratic anti-Bain ads, according to Burton, have been designed to soften up the electorate to make it possible to run, in the near future, commercials linking Romney to the Ryan budget. The anti-Bain commercials have the long-range goal, in Burton's words, of "building a 'thought structure' among voters of a guy who makes decisions based on profits, and not on the concerns of middle class families." Adding Ryan to the ticket serves to greatly facilitate development of this "thought structure."
Which brings us to another problematic aspect of Romney's decision to pick Ryan. The very qualities that attract the right to Ryan - his ideological purity and his verbal dexterity in making the case for smaller government - are very likely to eclipse Romney, who despite the boldness of his choice still projects a weak political persona and ideological ambiguity. No candidate willingly demotes himself from first to second fiddle, but Romney has chosen to do so.
In this context, Fred Barnes paid the ticket a backhanded compliment:
Romney showed that, like a smart businessman, he knows his shortcomings. For all his attacks on Obama's economic policies, Romney has failed to create a sense of urgency about the country's faltering economic situation. And without a national fear of an impending catastrophe, he can't defeat Obama.
Romney's solution, Barnes wrote, is to get someone who can: "No one in America is better than Ryan in spelling out, with figures and facts, the crisis America faces."
For very different reasons, Democrat strategists like Burton and Garin would agree.
Fact-Checking Is Not Enough
Paul Ryan, Black Panther?
The Welfare Gambit
Embracing Sheldon Adelson
Britain or Bust
LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1308 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Paul Ryan, Black Panther?
BYLINE: ADAM GOODHEART, PETER MANSEAU and TED WIDMER
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 749 words
HIGHLIGHT: Apparently, Saul Alinsky is not the only leftist agitator who will make an appearance in this year's presidential campaign.
Did Paul Ryan quote a famous 1960s Black Panther Party slogan in his speech on Saturday announcing his candidacy for vice president on the Republican ticket?
For a moment, it sounded that way. Recalling words of advice offered by his late father, Mr. Ryan said, "I still remember a couple of things he would say that have really stuck with me. 'Son, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution.' Regrettably, President Obama has become part of the problem, and Mitt Romney is the solution."
Give Mr. Ryan credit for making the Republicans' big tent a little bigger. The slogan "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" served as a mantra of sorts for Eldridge Cleaver, the minister of information for the Black Panthers, the extreme black nationalist group. Cleaver was an unlikely public figure who had emerged from the Los Angeles ghetto with a long criminal record and a penchant for provocative statements. An ex-con who had done time for a series of rapes, he called for armed resistance to government authorities and urged black G.I.s in Vietnam to kill their white officers. With Cleaver's name attached, the phrase appeared on banners, buttons and picket signs at demonstrations well into the 1970s, and was picked up by other radical leftist leaders.
It's perhaps unlikely that Mr. Ryan's father, a lawyer in Janesville, Wisc., was present at a political gathering in 1968 when the Black Panthers co-founder Bobby Seale, urging his followers to smash "the American Empire," proclaimed:
Everyone falls into two categories. You are either part of the problem - or part of the solution. Being part of the solution means you're willing to grab a shotgun and take to the barricades, killing if necessary. Being part of the problem means you're on the other side of the shotgun. There is no in-between.
The Panthers, it turns out, may themselves have been borrowing from an earlier, more mainstream usage of the phrase, in a 1967 poster campaign created by an advertising firm in Washington. The ads promoted Volunteers in Service to America, commonly known as VISTA, the anti-poverty service program begun as one of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society initiatives. Mr. Ryan, who has built his career on opposing federal aid to low-income Americans, would hardly find this much more palatable.
Charlie Rosner, the graphic designer and copywriter who wrote the text for the VISTA posters and claims credit for coining the famous slogan, recalled yesterday in a phone interview that the campaign was a rush job in response to an offer of free ad space on the sides of Washington's mail trucks. The promotion included several different catchphrases; Mr. Rosner's own favorite was "Not exactly the sort of work your mother had in mind for you."
But Mr. Rosner, a registered Democrat who describes himself as a "bleeding-heart conservative," has no plans to try to collect usage fees from Mr. Ryan, or from anyone else. "Certain pieces of the lingo sort of become the property of nobody," he said. "This one seems to have the half life of Strontium-90. It's terrific that he's using it; it's a pretty decent set of words to live by."
Some might also see Mr. Ryan's usage of the phrase as an example of how today's conservative leaders have adopted many of the attitudes and tactics of what was once the new left. Just as the gentler liberalism of the early 1960s hardened into the militancy of the Black Panthers, so, too, Republicans like Mr. Ryan have increasingly adopted a "you're either with us or against us" stance.
Mitt Romney and his new running mate might find comfort in another odd twist of history. Eldridge Cleaver eventually fled the United States after a shootout in which two policemen were wounded. But he later returned, having pleaded guilty to lesser charges - and, before his death in 1998, became a Republican and a Mormon.
Adam Goodheart is the director of Washington College's C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience, where Peter Manseau is a scholar in residence and Ted Widmer, a former presidential speechwriter, was the founding director. Kathy Thornton and Katie Tabeling, student associates at the center, contributed research.
Historically Corrected is a project of students and faculty at Washington College's C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience. To learn more, click here .
The Obamas' Party
Humanize This!
'Do You Trust Politicians?'
The Palin Effect
Knowns, Unknowns and Unknowables
LOAD-DATE: September 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1309 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 12, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Is there enough religious freedom to go around?
BYLINE: Michelle Boorstein
SECTION: Outlook; Pg. B03
LENGTH: 1223 words
In the United States, Muslim women trying to maintain modesty should get female-only hours at the public pool, right? What about Wiccan troops who want a chaplain of their own, even if there are only a few thousand of them in the military? And Catholic business owners who believe that contraception is killing - should they have to provide it to employees, now that the health-care law requires that workers get it? The debate over whether religious freedom is being threatened seems to have hit an apex, with the Catholic Church launching its biggest campaign in a generation against the contraception mandate. Even the presidential campaign is mixing it up; Mitt Romney's latest ad asks, "When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?"
But the real question is: What does religious freedom look like? As America gets more religiously diverse, the concept is becoming harder to define.
The bishops poured resources into their "Fortnight for Freedom" effort, which warned that Americans' liberty to practice religion is at risk. It featured overflow mega-Masses with special prayers for the protection of religious liberty. A slew of lawsuits are pitting the president against some of the most prominent Catholic institutions in the nation.
What do we mean when we talk about the freedom liberty to practice religion in America? Who gets to define it? And when should religious liberty freedom yield to other values?
Muslim cabdrivers are refusing to carry alcohol in their vehicles. Some Christian bed-and-breakfast owners won't host honeymooning same-sex couples. And before America got a crash course in their beliefs after this past week's tragic shooting in Wisconsin, turban-wearing Sikhs have been fighting extra screening at airports.
America has no road map out of this conflict. No vibrant democracy in history has had our level of religious pluralism or piety. We're on our own to figure out how to protect it. And the only thing people in the booming field of religious-liberty law seem to agree on is that Americans can expect more fighting.
"I think now, as diversity is increasing, as secularists and other agendas move forward, we'll see that traditional base call out for more and more accommodations to respect their beliefs," said Hannah Smith, a senior counsel with the Becket Fund, one of the leading religious-liberty law firms.
It's been an angry summer, particularly for religious conservatives.
Catholic bishops have focused on the Obama administration's new health-care law and its mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage. And on same-sex marriage, the once-neutral chicken sandwich has become a the rallying cry for orthodoxy.
When the bishops and their religious- conservative allies say their place in society is under assault, they have a point. Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs about gender, sex, reproduction and marriage were for centuries treated as the norm, but consensus has since crumbled, not only in secular culture but in religious communities as well. Those beliefs - and the right to practice them in your life by what you wear, what you say at work, whom you hire and what kind of health care you have - are colliding with other, newly accepted beliefs and rights.
There are new state laws requiring adoption agencies and foster-care providers to consider same-sex parents. Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a Christian law school group in California couldn't ban gay students . Missouri voters this past week passed a sweeping "right to pray" ballot measure, which guarantees that residents can express their religious beliefs in public places, including students who want to opt out of class activities that violate their beliefs. The measure's critics have said that religious freedom is already protected and that the law will create endless litigation, but supporters say it's needed to protect views such as creationism and opposition to gay equality. Another major driver of tension has been, ironically, a generation of anti-discrimination measures. There are dozens of new protected classes, which can lead to conflict. If it's illegal in Texas to discriminate in employment against someone who is pregnant, can a Baptist school fire an unmarried teacher because she violated the faith? Can a married Catholic school teacher in Indiana claim disability discrimination for infertility after she was fired for using in vitro fertilization , also against church teaching?
Major court decisions point in all different directions. The Supreme Court in 1990 ruled that Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to a Native American fired for using peyote, even though his faith includes it in prayer ceremonies. And this year the high court said that churches are generally exempt from employee discrimination claims if a worker's position has any religious component. The case centered on a parochial school teacher who was fired after she threatened to take an employment dispute to court, rather than resolve it within the community, as doctrine requires.
Perhaps nothing has created more tension over religious freedom than something that was created to boost it: much-expanded partnerships between the government and faith-based groups.
Court decisions in the 1990s made it easier for public money to flow to religious institutions - specifically, to religious schools in the form of vouchers and to overtly sectarian groups that provide social services such as anti-addiction programs or housing assistance.
In an era of bigger government, faith-based groups argue that they need to be part of the social services being provided - with no major strings attached. That may mean a Christian group being able to hang a cross on the wall at a government-funded drug-addiction treatment office. Or not being forced to hire people of another religion at a government-funded disaster aid organization.
If the government gives a Catholic group a grant and exempts it from some federal requirements, such as giving women access to contraception, is that a win for religion? Or is it a loss, since some might think that the government preferred one faith group over another?
The Mormon Church's decision to ban polygamy in 1890, allowing Utah to join the United States, is seen today as a victory for mainstream values over an unpopular religious practice. But last year, when a ballot measure was proposed in California to ban male circumcision, it was clobbered as a violation of religious liberty.
John Whitehead has as good a bird's eye view on this as anyone. When he launched a career as a religious-freedom lawyer in the late 1970s, he and the ACLU were practically the only people in the business. A conservative evangelical, Whitehead had a portfolio largely consisting of defending anti-abortion protesters tossed off sidewalks.
Today, his Rutherford Institute in Charlottesville is considered the model for half a dozen religious-freedom firms, and business is jumping.
Whitehead has made a living off the subject but has come to this conclusion: "You can get 10 different groups in the room, and they will disagree about what religious liberty is."
boorsteinm@washpost.com
Michelle Boorstein is a religion reporter for The Washington Post.
Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1310 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 12, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Romney plays the race card
BYLINE: Dana Milbank
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 737 words
Mitt Romney has finally figured out what to do with his vanquished rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. They will be his senior advisers on race relations.
Both gentlemen are eminently qualified for this role.
Santorum, you may recall, is the man who stood before a group of white Iowans in January and said: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."
The candidate later attempted to argue that he had said "blah" rather than "black."
Then came Gingrich, who in New Hampshire repeatedly dubbed President Obama "the best food-stamp president in American history." Then, as now, Gingrich claimed his branding of the first black president with a program that disproportionately benefits African Americans had nothing to do with race.
Romney, admirably, had largely avoided such dog whistles during the primary campaign. Then, last this week, he released an ad that abandoned the high ground, falsely claiming that Obama had "quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform." It went on: "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check." I covered welfare reform in 1995 and 1996 as a congressional reporter for the Wall Street Journal, so I have followed the issue closely. And Romney's assertion is, as has been widely documented, nonsense. Republican governors were among those requesting the recent waivers of the welfare work requirements, the "demonstration projects" that sparked Romney's attack. Ron Haskins, who as a Ways and Means Committee staffer in the 1990s helped draft the welfare law for House Republicans, told NPR that "there's no plausible scenario under which it really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform."
Why Romney is doing this is fairly plain. Romney polls best among white, working-class men, and he needs them to turn out in large numbers. Yet even at this late stage of the campaign, some of the GOP base remains suspicious of his candidacy - a suspicion that was encouraged by last this week's defense of "Romneycare" in Massachusetts by a Romney spokeswoman. And a poll by Pew Research Center last month found that nearly a quarter of white evangelicals were uncomfortable with Romney's Mormonism. Romney therefore has incentive to revive the culture wars, which also accounts for his ad last this week claiming Obama had launched a "war on religion." What makes Romney's welfare gambit dispiriting is that, as a member of one of the most persecuted groups in U.S. history, he knows more than most the dangers of fanning bigotry. Yet now he has injected into the campaign what has for decades been a standard device for race-baiting - a suspect move because welfare hadn't been on the radar screen.
This is my problem with Romney: He is a decent man, but he's too weak to stand up to the minority on his own side who are not. With the welfare attack, he is encouraging them. After releasing the ad claiming Obama would "just send you your welfare check," Romney made the racial component official when his Republican National Committee hosted a conference call the next day with Gingrich, who, sure enough, reprised his food-stamp assault, telling reporters that "an honest discussion about dependency doesn't mean you're a racist." But what about a dishonest discussion?
Thursday, the RNC hosted a call with Santorum, who did everything but revive the "welfare queen" attack of the 1980s.
"What the president wants to do is turn back the clock and do what he has done with every single other entitlement program in this country, which is increase the number of people on it, increase dependency," Santorum charged. Add in Obama's "contempt for the Constitution, his contempt for the rule of law," Santorum added, "and this is a pattern that I think people are concerned about."
The week before launching his welfare attack, Romney told a group of donors in Jerusalem that "culture makes all the difference" in the "dramatic, stark" disparity between Israeli wealth and Palestinian poverty.
Saeb Erekat, an adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, called the statement "racist."
Romney may not have meant it to be - but, as Santorum likes to say, this is a pattern.
danamilbank@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1311 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 12, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Worst Week in Washington
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
SECTION: Outlook; Pg. B02
LENGTH: 349 words
It seemed like a powerful message.
On Tuesday, Priorities USA Action - a Democratic super PAC run by two former Obama White House aides and blessed by the president himself - released an advertisement featuring a former steelworker named Joe Soptic. He told a devastating story about losing his job and his health insurance just as his wife got sick with what turned out to be terminal cancer. Soptic's job was eliminated by Bain Capital, the company that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney helped found. The implication was clear: Because of actions by Romney, Soptic's wife died. "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned," Soptic said, driving the point home.
Republicans immediately cried foul. And soon, holes began appearing. Soptic's wife died five years after the plant closed. At the time Soptic was laid off, she had insurance through her job, which, Soptic told CNN, she lost a year or two later. Romney was running the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics when Bain shut down the company where Soptic worked.
As the controversy grew, Bill Burton, one of the founders of Priorities USA Action, appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer to defend the ad. "What this ad does is it tells a story of one guy and the impact that Mitt Romney had," Burton said. Blitzer replied by calling the ad "misleading."
Seeking to seize the high ground, the Romney campaign launched an ad of its own on Friday asking: "Doesn't America deserve better than a president who will say or do anything to stay in power?"
Priorities USA, for hitting a new low in a campaign full of negative ads, you had the worst week in Washington. Congrats, or something.
Have a candidate for the Worst Week in Washington? E-mail Chris Cillizza at chris.cillizza@wpost.com Read more from Outlook:
Five myths about campaign advertising Could a truly honest politician become president?
Friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1312 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 12, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
In welfare war, neither side fighting fair
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A section; Pg. A07
LENGTH: 1153 words
"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
- Mitt Romney campaign ad released Aug. 7
" He [Romney] used to support these kinds of waivers. In 2005, he joined other Republican governors in a letter to Senator Frist, urging the Senate to move quickly on 'increased waiver authority' for the welfare program."
- Obama campaign _blankdefenseon its Web site When Bill Clinton signed the bill overhauling welfare 16 years ago, the 42nd president _blankdeclared: "After I sign my name to this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue. The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. There are no encrusted habits, systems, and failures that can be laid at the foot of someone else."
Oops, guess he was wrong about that.
In an effort to reopen the welfare war, Mitt Romney last week began airing a tough ad that accuses President Obama of wanting to do away with the work requirements embedded in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. In effect, Romney is trying to suggest that Obama is such a left-winger that he would undo a central achievement of a Democratic icon.
People forget that Clinton's signing of the bill - a few months before the 1996 presidential election - was highly controversial. Clinton, in his signing speech, spent almost as much time talking about the things he disliked in the GOP-crafted bill as he did about the parts he liked. Key members of his administration resigned in protest. And a young state senator in Illinois named Barack Obama also _blankexpressed his opposition.This is a complex issue, and highly technical, which makes it ripe for spin and counterspin. Neither side necessarily conducts itself with glory here.
The Facts
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the centerpiece of the 1996 legislation, established work requirements and time-limited benefits for recipients. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services, without much fanfare, issued _blanka memorandum saying that it was encouraging "states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment." As part of that, the HHS secretary would consider issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets.
On the surface, one would think conservatives would applaud the federal government for giving greater flexibility to the states. But the administration appears to have done this without much consultation with Congress, and it also asserted a novel waiver authority that took GOP lawmakers by surprise.
The text of the memorandum states that HHS "will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals" of the legislation.
But conservatives smelled a rat. Robert Rector, a welfare expert at the Heritage Foundation, _blankannounced that "Obama Guts Welfare Reform" - a headline featured in the Romney ad. Mickey Kaus, another welfare expert, also _blankoutlined various ways that the language in the memorandum could be used to water down work requirements and allow welfare rolls to soar. By contrast, left-leaning groups that have been concerned about the legislation, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, praised the move.
A more nuanced view comes from Ron Haskins, who was instrumental in crafting the original law. He _blanktold our colleagues at Wonkblog that the concept of the waivers is a good one, though the process used by the administration was unfair. "It might not be illegal," he said. "But [HHS] didn't even consult with the Republicans. They knew the spirit of the law, and they violated that."In other words, we are mainly talking about a process foul and poor coordination with Congress. One of the main critics of the waivers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), conceded as much when the _blankSalt Lake Tribune noted that the administration said it was responding to a request from the Republican governor of Hatch's state.
"Hatch does not believe that HHS has the legal authority to waive TANF work rules," Hatch spokesman Matt Harakal told the Tribune. "This is a completely different issue than giving states flexibility through a regular reauthorization of TANF."
It is also important to note that no waivers have yet been issued. The Romney campaign ad goes much too far when it suggests Obama has already taken action to "drop work requirements." The ad further states that "under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Here, the Romney campaign is asserting an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules, but it is certainly not based on any specific "Obama plan."
The Obama counterspin
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign claims that Romney sought a similar waiver when he was governor of Massachusetts, citing _blanka 2005 letter that he signed along with other Republican governors urging that the House and Senate settle their differences and agree to an extension of the welfare law. As far as we can determine from studying ancient history, this is a case of apples and oranges.
Yes, the letter speaks of "increased waiver authority," but this refers to language in a pending Senate bill updating the welfare overhaul, not to a waiver of work requirements. Indeed, that bill would have increased mandatory work requirements, from 50 to 70 percent, while adding flexibility to the states in terms of countable activities.
So, here, the Obama campaign is seizing on similar phrasing ("waiver") to misleadingly portray Romney as two-faced on this issue.
The Pinocchio Test
The campaigns' descent into gotcha politics is increasingly dispiriting.
Conservatives may have legitimate concerns about the process in which the administration has approached this issue, or its legal reasoning, but that does not excuse the Romney campaign from charging that there is an "Obama plan" to weaken the law and issue welfare checks to people who do not work.
All things being equal, the Romney ad leans more toward four Pinocchios. There is something fishy about the administration's process on this memorandum, but that does not excuse the Romney campaign's over-the-top ad.
Mitt Romney gets:
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is being disingenuous when it suggests Romney sought the same sort of waiver authority when he was governor, when there is little evidence that is the case. The claim that Romney sought waiver authority in 2005 is worth a solid three.
President Obama gets:
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read more FactChecker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker
LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1313 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 12, 2012 Sunday 8:05 PM EST
Fight over campaign ads spills into Sunday shows;
Fight over campaign ads continues on Sunday shows
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 438 words
The back-and-forth over a pair of controversial ads recently released by Mitt Romney's campaign and a super PAC supporting President Obama spilled over into the Sunday morning news shows, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) calling the anti-Romney spot "disgraceful" and a top Obama adviser criticizing the Romney campaign's negative ad against the president.
Last week, Priorities USA, the pro-Obama group, released a harsh ad tying Romney to the death of a steelworker's wife. Republicans pushed back against the commercial, which the Washington Post Fact Checker gave four Pinocchios, a mark reserved for the most factually incorrect claims.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," McCain called on Obama to denounce the ad. He said he had "run out of adjectives and adverbs" for it, adding that "this president and the people around him promised hope and change, a new environment in Washington. And now it's probably deteriorated into the most negative, most unpleasant, most disgraceful campaign I have ever observed."
It's worth noting that candidates and super PACs cannot coordinate, and Obama aides have claimed no knowledge of the ad's details. Ad trackers last week showed the ad had not actually run on TV.
On the same program, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz distanced herself from the ad and the group responsible for it. "I have no idea of the political affiliation of folks who are associated with that super PAC," she said. Priorities USA is headed by Bill Burton, a former spokesman in the Obama White House.
When asked on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" whether Obama agreed with the ad, his adviser, David Axelrod said, "I don't think Governor Romney can be blamed for that woman's death." He also pivoted to a discussion about a Romney campaign ad that argues Obama wants to gut welfare reform. That ad also received four Pinocchios from the Washington Post Fact Checker.
"Every single person who's looked at it said it's false. He continues to run it. He says I approve this message, and then he attacks others for ads that we didn't approve and that we didn't produce? I think he's the one who needs to explain," Axelrod said on ABC. The Obama campaign has released its own response ad noting that the president is not removing the welfare's bill work requirement.
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty appeared on the same program and was also asked about the Romney spot. Pawlenty defended Romney, saying, "If [Obama] is saying he's not as part of his directive going to rescind or undermine the work requirements, then just clarify that part of it. But he refuses to do it."
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1314 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Every Edition
Is there enough religious freedom to go around?
BYLINE: Michelle Boorstein
SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. B03
LENGTH: 1215 words
In the United States, Muslim women trying to maintain modesty should get female-only hours at the public pool, right? What about Wiccan troops who want a chaplain of their own, even if there are only a few thousand of them in the military? And Catholic business owners who believe that contraception is killing - should they have to provide it to employees, now that the health-care law requires that workers get it?
The debate over whether religious freedom is being threatened seems to have hit an apex, with the Catholic Church launching its biggest campaign in a generation against the contraception mandate. Even the presidential campaign is mixing it up; Mitt Romney's latest ad asks, "When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?"
But the real question is: What does religious freedom look like? As America gets more religiously diverse, the concept is becoming harder to define.
The bishops poured resources into their "Fortnight for Freedom" effort, which warned that Americans' liberty to practice religion is at risk. It featured overflow mega-Masses with special prayers for the protection of religious liberty. A slew of lawsuits are pitting the president against some of the most prominent Catholic institutions in the nation.
What do we mean when we talk about the freedom liberty to practice religion in America? Who gets to define it? And when should religious liberty freedom yield to other values?
Muslim cabdrivers are refusing to carry alcohol in their vehicles. Some Christian bed-and-breakfast owners won't host honeymooning same-sex couples. And before America got a crash course in their beliefs after this past week's tragic shooting in Wisconsin, turban-wearing Sikhs have been fighting extra screening at airports.
America has no road map out of this conflict. No vibrant democracy in history has had our level of religious pluralism or piety. We're on our own to figure out how to protect it. And the only thing people in the booming field of religious-liberty law seem to agree on is that Americans can expect more fighting.
"I think now, as diversity is increasing, as secularists and other agendas move forward, we'll see that traditional base call out for more and more accommodations to respect their beliefs," said Hannah Smith, a senior counsel with the Becket Fund, one of the leading religious-liberty law firms.
It's been an angry summer, particularly for religious conservatives.
Catholic bishops have focused on the Obama administration's new health-care law and its mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage. And on same-sex marriage, the once-neutral chicken sandwich has become a the rallying cry for orthodoxy.
When the bishops and their religious- conservative allies say their place in society is under assault, they have a point. Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs about gender, sex, reproduction and marriage were for centuries treated as the norm, but consensus has since crumbled, not only in secular culture but in religious communities as well. Those beliefs - and the right to practice them in your life by what you wear, what you say at work, whom you hire and what kind of health care you have - are colliding with other, newly accepted beliefs and rights.
There are new state laws requiring adoption agencies and foster-care providers to consider same-sex parents. Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a Christian law school group in California couldn't ban gay students. Missouri voters this past week passed a sweeping "right to pray" ballot measure, which guarantees that residents can express their religious beliefs in public places, including students who want to opt out of class activities that violate their beliefs. The measure's critics have said that religious freedom is already protected and that the law will create endless litigation, but supporters say it's needed to protect views such as creationism and opposition to gay equality.
Another major driver of tension has been, ironically, a generation of anti-discrimination measures. There are dozens of new protected classes, which can lead to conflict. If it's illegal in Texas to discriminate in employment against someone who is pregnant, can a Baptist school fire an unmarried teacherbecause she violated the faith? Can a married Catholic school teacher in Indiana claim disability discrimination for infertility after she was fired for using in vitro fertilization, also against church teaching?
Major court decisions point in all different directions. The Supreme Court in 1990 ruled that Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to a Native American fired for using peyote, even though his faith includes it in prayer ceremonies. And this year the high court said that churches are generally exempt from employee discrimination claimsif a worker's position has any religious component. The case centered on a parochial school teacher who was fired after she threatened to take an employment dispute to court, rather than resolve it within the community, as doctrine requires.
Perhaps nothing has created more tension over religious freedom than something that was created to boost it: much-expanded partnerships between the government and faith-based groups.
Court decisions in the 1990s made it easier for public money to flow to religious institutions - specifically, to religious schools in the form of vouchers and to overtly sectarian groups that provide social services such as anti-addiction programs or housing assistance.
In an era of bigger government, faith-based groups argue that they need to be part of the social services being provided - with no major strings attached. That may mean a Christian group being able to hang a cross on the wall at a government-funded drug-addiction treatment office. Or not being forced to hire people of another religion at a government-funded disaster aid organization.
If the government gives a Catholic group a grant and exempts it from some federal requirements, such as giving women access to contraception, is that a win for religion? Or is it a loss, since some might think that the government preferred one faith group over another?
The Mormon Church's decision to ban polygamy in 1890, allowing Utah to join the United States, is seen today as a victory for mainstream values over an unpopular religious practice. But last year, when a ballot measure was proposed in California to ban male circumcision, it was clobbered as a violation of religious liberty.
John Whitehead has as good a bird's eye view on this as anyone. When he launched a career as a religious-freedom lawyer in the late 1970s, he and the ACLU were practically the only people in the business. A conservative evangelical, Whitehead had a portfolio largely consisting of defending anti-abortion protesters tossed off sidewalks.
Today, his Rutherford Institute in Charlottesville is considered the model for half a dozen religious-freedom firms, and business is jumping.
Whitehead has made a living off the subject but has come to this conclusion: "You can get 10 different groups in the room, and they will disagree about what religious liberty is."
boorsteinm@washpost.com
Michelle Boorstein is a religion reporter for The Washington Post.
Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1315 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Regional Edition
Romney plays the race card
BYLINE: Dana Milbank
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 729 words
Mitt Romney has finally figured out what to do with his vanquished rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. They will be his senior advisers on race relations.
Both gentlemen are eminently qualified for this role.
Santorum, you may recall, is the man who stood before a group of white Iowans in January and said: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."
The candidate later attempted to argue that he had said "blah" rather than "black."
Then came Gingrich, who in New Hampshire repeatedly dubbed President Obama "the best food-stamp president in American history." Then, as now, Gingrich claimed his branding of the first black president with a program that disproportionately benefits African Americans had nothing to do with race.
Romney, admirably, had largely avoided such dog whistles during the primary campaign. Then, last this week,he released an ad that abandoned the high ground, falsely claiming that Obama had "quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform." It went on: "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
I covered welfare reform in 1995 and 1996 as a congressional reporter for the Wall Street Journal, so I have followed the issue closely. And Romney's assertion is, as has been widely documented, nonsense. Republican governors were among those requesting the recent waivers of the welfare work requirements, the "demonstration projects" that sparked Romney's attack. Ron Haskins, who as a Ways and Means Committee staffer in the 1990s helped draft the welfare law for House Republicans, told NPR that "there's no plausible scenario under which it really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform."
Why Romney is doing this is fairly plain. Romney polls best among white, working-class men, and he needs them to turn out in large numbers. Yet even at this late stage of the campaign, some of the GOP base remains suspicious of his candidacy - a suspicion that was encouraged by last this week'sdefense of "Romneycare" in Massachusetts by a Romney spokeswoman. And a poll by Pew Research Center last month found that nearly a quarter of white evangelicals were uncomfortable with Romney's Mormonism. Romney therefore has incentive to revive the culture wars, which also accounts for his ad last this week claiming Obama had launched a "war on religion."
What makes Romney's welfare gambit dispiriting is that, as a member of one of the most persecuted groups in U.S. history, he knows more than most the dangers of fanning bigotry. Yet now he has injected into the campaign what has for decades been a standard device for race-baiting - a suspect move because welfare hadn't been on the radar screen.
This is my problem with Romney: He is a decent man, but he's too weak to stand up to the minority on his own side who are not. With the welfare attack, he is encouraging them. After releasing the ad claiming Obama would "just send you your welfare check," Romney made the racial component official when his Republican National Committee hosted a conference call the next day with Gingrich, who, sure enough, reprised his food-stamp assault, telling reporters that "an honest discussion about dependency doesn't mean you're a racist." But what about a dishonest discussion?
Thursday, the RNC hosted a call with Santorum, who did everything but revive the "welfare queen" attack of the 1980s.
"What the president wants to do is turn back the clock and do what he has done with every single other entitlement program in this country, which is increase the number of people on it, increase dependency," Santorum charged. Add in Obama's "contempt for the Constitution, his contempt for the rule of law," Santorum added, "and this is a pattern that I think people are concerned about."
The week before launching his welfare attack, Romney told a group of donors in Jerusalem that "culture makes all the difference" in the "dramatic, stark" disparity between Israeli wealth and Palestinian poverty.
Saeb Erekat, an adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, called the statement "racist."
Romney may not have meant it to be - but, as Santorum likes to say, this is a pattern.
danamilbank@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1316 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Every Edition
Worst Week in Washington
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. B02
LENGTH: 328 words
It seemed like a powerful message.
On Tuesday, Priorities USA Action - a Democratic super PAC run by two former Obama White House aides and blessed by the president himself - released an advertisement featuring a former steelworker named Joe Soptic. He told a devastating story about losing his job and his health insurance just as his wife got sick with what turned out to be terminal cancer. Soptic's job was eliminated by Bain Capital, the company that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney helped found.
The implication was clear: Because of actions by Romney, Soptic's wife died. "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned," Soptic said, driving the point home.
Republicans immediately cried foul. And soon, holes began appearing. Soptic's wife died five years after the plant closed. At the time Soptic was laid off, she had insurance through her job, which, Soptic told CNN, she lost a year or two later. Romney was running the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics when Bain shut down the company where Soptic worked.
As the controversy grew, Bill Burton, one of the founders of Priorities USA Action, appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer to defend the ad. "What this ad does is it tells a story of one guy and the impact that Mitt Romney had," Burton said. Blitzer replied by calling the ad "misleading."
Seeking to seize the high ground, the Romney campaign launched an adof its own on Friday asking: "Doesn't America deserve better than a president who will say or do anything to stay in power?"
Priorities USA, for hitting a new low in a campaign full of negative ads, you had the worst week in Washington. Congrats, or something.
Have a candidate for the Worst Week in Washington? E-mail Chris Cillizza at chris.cillizza@wpost.com
Read more from Outlook:
Five myths about campaign advertising
Could a truly honest politician become president?
Friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1317 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 12, 2012 Sunday
Regional Edition
In welfare war, neither side fighting fair
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A07
LENGTH: 1132 words
"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
- Mitt Romney campaign ad released Aug. 7
" He [Romney] used to support these kinds of waivers. In 2005, he joined other Republican governors in a letter to Senator Frist, urging the Senate to move quickly on 'increased waiver authority' for the welfare program."
- Obama campaign _blankdefenseon its Web site
When Bill Clinton signed the bill overhauling welfare 16 years ago, the 42nd president _blankdeclared: "After I sign my name to this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue. The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. There are no encrusted habits, systems, and failures that can be laid at the foot of someone else."
Oops, guess he was wrong about that.
In an effort to reopen the welfare war, Mitt Romney last week began airing a tough ad that accuses President Obama of wanting to do away with the work requirements embedded in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. In effect, Romney is trying to suggest that Obama is such a left-winger that he would undo a central achievement of a Democratic icon.
People forget that Clinton's signing of the bill - a few months before the 1996 presidential election - was highly controversial. Clinton, in his signing speech, spent almost as much time talking about the things he disliked in the GOP-crafted bill as he did about the parts he liked. Key members of his administration resigned in protest. And a young state senator in Illinois named Barack Obama also _blankexpressed his opposition.
This is a complex issue, and highly technical, which makes it ripe for spin and counterspin. Neither side necessarily conducts itself with glory here.
The Facts
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the centerpiece of the 1996 legislation, established work requirements and time-limited benefits for recipients. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services, without much fanfare, issued _blanka memorandum saying that it was encouraging "states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment." As part of that, the HHS secretary would consider issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets.
On the surface, one would think conservatives would applaud the federal government for giving greater flexibility to the states. But the administration appears to have done this without much consultation with Congress, and it also asserted a novel waiver authority that took GOP lawmakers by surprise.
The text of the memorandum states that HHS "will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals" of the legislation.
But conservatives smelled a rat. Robert Rector, a welfare expert at the Heritage Foundation, _blankannounced that "Obama Guts Welfare Reform" - a headline featured in the Romney ad. Mickey Kaus, another welfare expert, also _blankoutlined various ways that the language in the memorandum could be used to water down work requirements and allow welfare rolls to soar.
By contrast, left-leaning groups that have been concerned about the legislation, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, praised the move.
A more nuanced view comes from Ron Haskins, who was instrumental in crafting the original law. He _blanktold our colleagues at Wonkblog that the concept of the waivers is a good one, though the process used by the administration was unfair. "It might not be illegal," he said. "But [HHS] didn't even consult with the Republicans. They knew the spirit of the law, and they violated that."
In other words, we are mainly talking about a process foul and poor coordination with Congress. One of the main critics of the waivers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), conceded as much when the _blankSalt Lake Tribune noted that the administration said it was responding to a request from the Republican governor of Hatch's state.
"Hatch does not believe that HHS has the legal authority to waive TANF work rules," Hatch spokesman Matt Harakal told the Tribune. "This is a completely different issue than giving states flexibility through a regular reauthorization of TANF."
It is also important to note that no waivers have yet been issued. The Romney campaign ad goes much too far when it suggests Obama has already taken action to "drop work requirements." The ad further states that "under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Here, the Romney campaign is asserting an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules, but it is certainly not based on any specific "Obama plan."
The Obama counterspin
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign claims that Romney sought a similar waiver when he was governor of Massachusetts, citing _blanka 2005 letter that he signed along with other Republican governors urging that the House and Senate settle their differences and agree to an extension of the welfare law.
As far as we can determine from studying ancient history, this is a case of apples and oranges.
Yes, the letter speaks of "increased waiver authority," but this refers to language in a pending Senate bill updating the welfare overhaul, not to a waiver of work requirements. Indeed, that bill would have increased mandatory work requirements, from 50 to 70 percent, while adding flexibility to the states in terms of countable activities.
So, here, the Obama campaign is seizing on similar phrasing ("waiver") to misleadingly portray Romney as two-faced on this issue.
The Pinocchio Test
The campaigns' descent into gotcha politics is increasingly dispiriting.
Conservatives may have legitimate concerns about the process in which the administration has approached this issue, or its legal reasoning, but that does not excuse the Romney campaign from charging that there is an "Obama plan" to weaken the law and issue welfare checks to people who do not work.
All things being equal, the Romney ad leans more toward four Pinocchios. There is something fishy about the administration's process on this memorandum, but that does not excuse the Romney campaign's over-the-top ad.
Mitt Romney gets:
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is being disingenuous when it suggests Romney sought the same sort of waiver authority when he was governor, when there is little evidence that is the case. The claim that Romney sought waiver authority in 2005 is worth a solid three.
President Obama gets:
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read more FactChecker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker
LOAD-DATE: August 12, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1318 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 11, 2012 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Campaign Steps Up Its Attacks on Negative Ads by a Pro-Obama 'Super PAC'
BYLINE: By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and TRIP GABRIEL; Michael Barbaro contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 805 words
Mitt Romney's campaign on Friday sought to take advantage of a backlash against negative campaigning by President Obama's allies, even as it tried to deny what new polls suggest -- that the full-throated assault on Mr. Romney's character may be working.Top advisers to Mr. Romney's campaign spent a third day lashing out at an ad from Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama ''super PAC,'' in which a steelworker tells how he and his cancer-stricken wife lost their health insurance when Mr. Romney's private equity firm closed his plant. The worker all but blames Mr. Romney for his wife's death, even though he lost his job years before her cancer was diagnosed.
''I don't think a world champion limbo dancer could get any lower than the Obama campaign right now,'' said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney. ''When you start running ads accusing your opponent of killing people, then you have lost your credibility.''
His comments followed a torrent of criticism, including an editorial in The Chicago Tribune that called it a ''vicious, shameful ad.''
In an effort to capitalize on that criticism, the Romney campaign quickly released a new television ad of its own asking: ''What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?''
But even as the Priorities USA ad -- which has not yet appeared on a television screen -- picked up steam on the Internet, Mr. Romney's campaign scrambled to play down the results of new national polls that showed Mr. Obama's lead widening, in one case to nearly double digits.
In a national Fox News poll conducted Sunday through Tuesday, Mr. Obama led Mr. Romney by nine percentage points, 49 to 40. A CNN/ORC poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday found Mr. Obama with an advantage, 52 percent to 45 percent, a seven-point difference, which is within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus four points.
Both polls showed Mr. Romney's favorability has been pummeled, especially among independent voters.
Advisers to Mr. Romney dismissed the results in a briefing with reporters at the campaign's Boston headquarters. But they conceded that they could not explain what they called a ''huge shift'' in the numbers.
''Guys, it's the middle of the summer. It's the doldrums,'' said a senior adviser to Mr. Romney's campaign, who asked not to be identified. ''It's the middle of the Olympics. There has not been any national news, anything that would push these numbers from minus three to minus nine points.''
In fact, the last several weeks has been dominated by increasingly acerbic television commercials by Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney and their supporters. The back and forth over the Priorities ad highlights the opportunities and the dangers of the intensely negative campaign.
Advisers to Mr. Obama's campaign have repeatedly pointed out that they are prohibited by law from having any contact with Priorities USA Action and its founders, Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney, who both worked in the White House before starting the group.
On Friday, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, deflected questions about the Priorities ad. ''We do not control third-party ads,'' Mr. Carney said, referring all questions about the ad to Mr. Obama's Chicago-based campaign.
And Mr. Carney and others tried to shift the focus by complaining about the Romney campaign's recent ad accusing the president of gutting welfare reform, a charge that has drawn wide criticism for being false.
Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, accused Mr. Fehrnstrom of ''faux outrage'' and said Mr. Romney has been the one leveling false attacks.
''His campaign has questioned whether the president understands what it is to be American, attacked his patriotism,'' Ms. Smith said. ''When the Romney campaign finally reaches the high ground, we look forward to greeting them there.''
Advisers to Mr. Romney drew a distinction between the two campaigns, insisting that the president's attacks -- and those from his allies -- have been more personal. They predicted that Mr. Obama's once-successful brand of ''hope and change'' will suffer because of the attacks.
''They are accusing him of culpability in the death of a woman,'' Mr. Fehrnstrom said. ''These attacks are so outrageous and over the top that it has squandered one of the most vital attributes that Obama had, which is he was a different kind of politician, who was going to change the state of our politics. He has changed it, but he's changed it for the worse.''
But Mr. Burton said his group's ad will eventually run on television and has already become a hit on the Web, especially in battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
''When people actually watch the ad, and don't just listen to the cable chatter, they understand exactly the point,'' Mr. Burton said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/us/politics/romney-team-steps-up-attacks-on-pro-obama-ads.html
LOAD-DATE: August 11, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Mitt Romney's campaign criticizes the president in a new ad. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT)
An ad from a pro-Obama ''super PAC'' drew wide criticism. (PHOTOGRAPH BY PRIORITIES USA ACTION)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1319 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Frank Bruni)
August 11, 2012 Saturday
Risky Ryan
BYLINE: FRANK BRUNI
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 693 words
HIGHLIGHT: By choosing Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has upended a whole host of assumptions about his candidacy.
Until this morning, Mitt Romney was running a campaign of extreme caution, in which he seemed intent on making it as hard as possible for voters-and Democrats-to pin down how he would really govern, which tough choices he'd be prepared to make.
With the selection of Paul Ryan, that changes.
Until this morning, he seemed intent on making the election entirely about President Obama and turning it into a referendum on the last four years, not a blueprint for the next four.
Ryan changes that, too.
He's a transformative choice-and a seriously, seriously risky one.
In the selection of a running mate as in the practice of medicine, there has long been the edict that you "first do no harm." Ryan could do enormous harm. With glee and persistence, he has laid out an entitlement reform plan that is indisputably an entitlement reduction plan, and while that speaks to a concern for federal budgets and for a ballooning debt that many Americans share, it comes at those fiscal challenges with a scythe when many Americans would prefer a scalpel. It isn't matched with a similarly emphatic commitment to revenue enhancement: with changes to the tax code that would get at what many voters feel is too much coddling of the richest Americans. That creates an opportunity for Democrats to ratchet up their assault on Romney as a candidate of and for the wealthy.
On top of that, Ryan has the potential to upstage Romney. He's more dynamic. More articulate. More specific. He's a poster boy for ideological conservatives. Romney's a poster boy for ideological chameleons.
So what's the advantage of Ryan, and why might Romney have picked him?
To date there have been two principal raps against Romney, two primary avenues of attack. The first involves Romney's affluence, his Bain career, his personal taxes and the whole notion of him as a plutocrat of epic avarice and questionable ethics. Romney has pushed back vigorously against that, but he can't rewrite a past that has given opponents much to rummage through and plenty of unflattering or at least curious bits to pick out and gape at.
The second involves Romney as an unprincipled panderer: as someone with no real ideological compass and a political history of shifting shapes to suit the moment. Here's where Ryan could help him. Perhaps none of the politicians on Romney's short list of vice presidential prospects promised to be as potent a lightning rod as Ryan; by going with Ryan, Romney assertively challenges the idea that he's unwilling to draw a bright line, to take a bold stand. He answers the charge that he doesn't stand for anything by standing with Ryan.
Romney also potentially fires up elements of the base. Gets them more excited about his candidacy than they've been to date.
There have long been two theories about presidential elections. One is that they're won in the middle, by the candidate who can pivot most successfully to the center and pick up the swing voters there. The other is that they're won by the candidate who gets higher turnout from voters always inclined to support him or her.
The Ryan selection seems to endorse and put stock in the second theory. The severity of his budget proposals and his intellectual romance with Ayn Rand don't strike me as big turn-ons for a large number of independents and moderates, many of whom will deem him-and maybe, by extension, the nominee who chose him-as too callous: as the man in that political ad who pushes grandma in her wheelchair all the way off the cliff. But true conservatives? Many are doing cartwheels right now.
The Ryan selection also tells us that the Romney campaign had, over the last month, grown less confident than it was and less confident than it pretended to be. If you're sure you're ahead and if you're sure that voters are going to make a decision solely about Obama, you indeed do no harm. And thus do no Ryan.
But if you feel yourself possibly slipping behind, and you finally come to the conclusion that you have to play some offense as well as defense, you steer away from the choices that would have been analyzed as too boring and too bland. Ryan is a great many things. Boring and bland aren't two of them.
LOAD-DATE: August 11, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1320 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(FiveThirtyEight)
August 11, 2012 Saturday
Aug. 11: Will Ryan Pick Move the Polls?
BYLINE: NATE SILVER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 1538 words
HIGHLIGHT: A roundup of the latest polls, most of which still give President Obama with a slim lead over Mitt Romney, with it still too soon to tell what the impact will be of Paul Ryan's addition to the Republican ticket.
We'll be hitting few different topics in this polling update, most of them related to Mitt Romney's selection of Representative Paul D. Ryan as his running mate.
I'll look at the the effects that Mr. Ryan could have in Wisconsin specifically. And I'll describe the effect that Mr. Ryan could have on Mr. Romney's national standing - vice presidential announcements often produce temporary but discernible bounces in their ticket's polling numbers. (The more interesting question, of course - and the hardest to predict - is what impact Mr. Ryan will have on the race in the long run. You can find my thoughts on that in the article we posted earlier on Saturday.)
But first, time for Saturday's regularly scheduled look at the latest polls.
Saturday's Polls
One new national poll was published on Saturday, although it was conducted prior to Mr. Romney's selection of Mr. Ryan. That poll, from the firm TIPP for The Christian Science Monitor and Investor's Business Daily, gave Barack Obama a 7-point lead over Mitt Romney in the national race.
Long-time readers may remember that I am not terribly fond of this polling firm - their numbers, for whatever reason, have tended to be pretty volatile in past elections - but this is nevertheless the latest in a series of national polls showing good numbers for Mr. Obama. And as in some of those other national surveys, the trend-line is favorable for Mr. Obama in the TIPP poll, as their previous survey showed a 4-point lead for him.
The national tracking polls, also published on Saturday, haven't been joining in the fun. The Gallup national tracker continues to show a tied race, and Rasmussen Reports puts Mr. Romney two points ahead - although Mr. Obama's position was improved in their survey from Friday, when he trailed by four points.
Why has Mr. Obama been on a hot streak in the one-off national polls but not the national tracking polls? I wouldn't overanalyze it - it's probably just a statistical quirk. Mr. Obama has had a pretty good month in the polls, but he probably hasn't really gained 3 points on Mr. Romney, as some polling firms seem to imply.
Unfortunately, we're not going to get a clean test of my hypothesis that Mr. Obama's national polls are due to revert to the mean, because of the presence of a new factor in the race: Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan's Effect on Wisconsin
Although it varies a lot from candidate to candidate, the typical vice presidential pick has given his ticket a 2-point bonus in his home state.
We can incorporate this knowledge into our forecast model by applying a relatively simple adjustment: I added two points to Mr. Romney's total in all the Wisconsin polls conducted before Mr. Ryan joined the ticket (which is to say, all of them so far) on the assumption that they will improve slightly with Mr. Ryan on the ballot.
We also shifted our estimate of Wisconsin's partisan lean two points toward Mr. Romney, which is reflected in the "state fundamentals" score that also informs the forecast. Mostly, the state fundamentals number reflects how the state voted in the prior two presidential elections, and you'd expect Republicans to do a bit better with Mr. Ryan on their ticket than in their previous election without him.
Incidentally, this is not a free lunch for Mr. Romney, or an ad hoc adjustment: We had already been incorporating this type of adjustment into the state fundamentals index for the other states that have a native son on the ballot. Delaware's state fundamentals score is two points more favorable to Mr. Obama than it otherwise would be, since Joe Biden is Mr. Obama's vice president. And Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney get a 7-point bonus - presidential candidates produce a larger effect than vice presidents do - in their home states of Illinois and Massachusetts, respectively. (It is not necessary to adjust the in these states, since the polls there already reflect the presence of Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney and Mr. Biden - but the state fundamentals score, which is not based on polling, is subject to the adjustment.)
Adding two points to Mr. Romney's figures in Wisconsin makes him more likely to win the state, of course, although he remains the underdog there: the model now projects Mr. Romney to lose the it by 5.2 percentage points. Still, his chances of pulling off a win in Wisconsin improved to 20 percent in the forecast, from just 12 percent on Friday.
Keep in mind that we now have Mr. Romney trailing by nearly 3 points in the national race. The spread between being behind by 5 points in Wisconsin (with the projected boost from Mr. Ryan on the ticket) and being behind by 3 points nationally isn't all that great.
In other words: Wisconsin has moved up the rankings as an important state. It was just on the boundary between being a critical state and not before, but it moves into the former category now.
In fact, the model now rates Wisconsin as the fourth-most important state based on its tipping point index, up from tenth place before, and trailing only Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. Mr. Romney would have realized a larger benefit by picking a candidate from a state that was already at the top of the list, like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. But it's not like Mr. Ryan is from ... well, Delaware, or some other state that plays no role at all in the electoral math.
Of course, Mr. Ryan may not actually produce a 2-point bonus for Mr. Romney in Wisconsin. Mr. Ryan represents just a corner of the state rather than Wisconsin in its entirety, and his favorability ratings are lukewarm in other parts of the state. Based on a more sophisticated method that accounts for the favorability ratings, I estimated that Mr. Ryan would be worth about 1 point to Mr. Romney in Wisconsin instead.
But we're using the default 2-point bonus in the official forecast, since that assumption had already been built into the design of the model. If the actual bounce that Mr. Romney gets from Mr. Ryan is 1 point instead, or 0 points, or 6 points, we'll know soon enough once we start to see some new polls from Wisconsin.
A National Polling Bounce?
I wouldn't be eager to consume the first few polls that we'll get after Mr. Ryan's selection, however. They may be a bit unsettled, and reflect a temporary burst of excitement for Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan that may not persist.
Gallup has found, for instance, that candidates typically get about a 5-point bounce in their polls after naming their running mates. But the effect seems to fade out after a week or two.
Mr. Ryan is an atypical choice for a running mate in some ways - he's a deeply strategic pick by Mr. Romney, rather than your usual crowd-pleaser. About half of Americans didn't know who Mr. Ryan was prior to Mr. Romney's announcement, but the other half were about equally divided in their views of him.
And this has also been an atypical election, in that very little has moved the polls at all. So perhaps Mr. Ryan will not produce such a bounce.
At the same time, the initial steps of a vice presidential roll-out are usually staged effectively by the campaigns. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan will get a lot of free exposure in the news media, and Republican voters will be excited by the pick and perhaps become more likely to respond to pollsters.
In short, Democrats should probably not worry too much if the polls move slightly toward Mr. Romney over the next week or two. For that matter, Republicans probably should not worry much if the polls fail to move toward Mr. Romney, because of the circumstances of the pick. (What if the polls actually move discernibly Mr. Romney? Well, that might be a bad sign for him.)
All of this is complicated by the fact that we will soon be moving into the period of the party conventions, which almost always do produce polling bounces. The convention bounce is predictable enough that our forecast will actually build in an adjustment for it, taking some points off Mr. Romney's numbers when he's basking in the convention afterglow, and the same for Mr. Obama after the Democratic convention.
The model does not make such an adjustment for the vice presidential selection - or for any other type of event from the conventions. Some of these things have relatively predictable effects on the polls - an unexpected attack on an American military installation on foreign soil might temporarily improve Mr. Obama's numbers because of the rally-around-the-flag effect, for instance. But you have to draw the line somewhere or pretty soon you'll be making an ad hoc adjustment for the fact that Mr. Romney wore an ugly tie one day.
The better solution - and this is incorporated into the design of the model - is to take a relatively long-term view of the polls at this stage of the campaign, rather than trying to chase down every trend from day to day. Apart from the statistical noise in polls, there can be short-term shifts because of news events that won't persist for very long. This is also a reason to hedge forecasts based on polling against a steadier forecast based on economic fundamentals, as our model does.
None of which is to say that Mr. Romney's selection of Mr. Ryan is unimportant - it may be the most important event in the election to date. But it's simply going to take some time to properly judge its impact.
LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1321 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 11, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
Negative-ad overload
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 105 words
Regarding the Aug. 8 front-page article, "Ohio economy improves, but few feel it":As a native Ohioan, I would find it hard to focus on economic successes while being bombarded with negative campaign ads. Both the Obama and Romney campaigns have hit Ohio hard with TV advertisements denouncing each other. Just last week the Aug. 2 news article "Hundreds of ads a day hitting Ohio" noted the sheer volume of ad attacks Ohioans have to sit through. When all you see and hear is how one candidate or the other wasted billions, destroyed jobs and sent jobs overseas, how is one supposed to see the recovery?
Jackie Wurzelbacher, Arlington
LOAD-DATE: August 11, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1322 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 11, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
BYLINE: Felicia Sonmez
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 370 words
A GOP pavilion for women
The issue-advocacy group YG Network is hosting a "women's pavilion" at this month's Republican National Convention in Tampa as part of its "Woman Up!" initiative launched earlier this year.
The group is headed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's former aides John Murray and Brad Dayspring, who also head the Young Guns super PAC, which is aimed at boosting Republicans in congressional races this fall.
The goal of the pavilion, according to YG Network policy director Mary Anne Carter, is "to raise awareness of conservative policies to women by women."
"I think one of the key things here is we need to continue to communicate why conservative policies are best for the country, and women are a target audience for that," Carter, who is also executive director of the "Woman Up!" effort, said in an interview this week. "So this is a great opportunity for us to address a large group of women in a national setting."
The pavilion will play host to panel discussions and presentations mainly from female speakers. And in commemoration of the 92nd anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote, which takes place on the eve of the convention, the pavilion will host a women's suffrage museum.
The initiative comes as the battle for the women's vote has once again moved front and center in the campaign.
In a new campaign ad and at a Colorado event this week, President Obama made a targeted appeal to women, arguing that Republicans would take women's health "back to the 1950s."
The Colorado event featured Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law Center student who earlier this year became a national figure after she was called a "slut" by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh because she backed the health-care law's contraception mandate.
Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has countered with an ad accusing the Obama administration of waging a "war on religion." Republicans also have tapped several prominent GOP women to speak at the convention, which runs from Aug. 27 to 30, including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
- Felicia Sonmez
LOAD-DATE: August 11, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1323 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 11, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
Provocative politics: Ads don't hold back
BYLINE: Nia-Malika Henderson;David Nakamura
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 799 words
The anti-Romney ad released this week by Priorities USA has been widely skewered as over-the-top and irresponsible, condemned for insinuating that Mitt Romney is to blame for the death of a woman whose husband lost his job and health insurance after Bain Capital bought his steel mill. Priorities USA is offering no apologies.
The provocative ad from the pro-Obama group - which has yet to actually air as a paid television commercial, according to a political ad tracking company - has drawn as much attention as any single spot so far in the campaign, breaking through a jumble of other messages to dominate the political discussion for days on end.
Increasingly, for campaigns on both sides, that is the entire goal: to somehow rise above a cluttered media landscape, no matter how outrageous a message that requires.
That has led to a flood of statements, ranging from creative to incendiary, by the campaigns and their allies in recent days. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has claimed that Romney did not pay taxes in multiple years. Democrats have produced an ad showing Rep. Allen B. West (R-Fla.) punching a woman. President Obama accused Romney of being Robin Hood in reverse, calling his positions "Romneyhood," which his rival countered by saying the president is full of "Obamaloney." On Thursday, Romney released an ad claiming that Obama is waging a "war on religion." The push-the-envelope approach is not entirely new. Two years ago, Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina released an eyebrow-raising "demon sheep" ad accusing her rival of being a wolf in sheep's clothing. In the Democratic primaries in 2008, the ad that drew the most attention was a warning from Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign that Obama was not ready to face a national security threat at 3 a.m. - a message conveyed in an ominous ad.
But this year's cascade is notable in part because it is so early - and there seems to be little incentive for either side to tone it down. The trend is so widespread that it has become the subject of a spoof in the Onion, which published a satirical story about a new Obama ad alleging "Romney murdered JonBenet Ramsey.""It's a knife fight in a telephone booth and there is no conventional referee out there who is going to throw a flag that makes a difference, so there's no downside," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist.
On Friday, Romney shot back at Obama, releasing an ad called "America Deserves Better" that accuses the president of "scraping bottom." The ad asks this question: "What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?"
Bill Burton, who heads Priorities USA, said his group isn't arguing that Romney literally had a hand in the woman's death. "This is one of several stories that we've put into ads to make sure people know about Mitt Romney's business experience and that it has continued to have an impact," Burton said of the minute-long spot.
The need to be more and more outrageous comes amid an explosion of advertising on both sides, a phenomenon driven not only by the record amounts of available cash, but also by the ease - and relative inexpensiveness - of advertising on the Internet.
While both campaigns have continued to air traditional television ads, they and their surrogates also have produced spots aimed solely at Web audiences, in some cases posting videos more than once per day on their official YouTube channels.
Though Internet videos were used in the 2008 cycle, the 2012 campaign has ushered in a far more sophisticated integration, experts said. The Obama and Romney campaigns use Web videos to launch attacks, respond to attacks and target specific interest groups, and often those ads, which cost little to produce, end up on cable television and garner huge audiences.
Most of these Web videos focused on raising questions about Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, accusing him of sending jobs offshore, and about Romney's refusal to release his tax returns. A sampling included titles such as "Mitt Romney: Saying Anything to Get Elected," "Mitt Romney's Bain Secret Exposed" and "Why Would Mitt Romney Invest Millions in the Cayman Islands?"
"It's a calculated use of negative and ridiculous advertising to try to drive [undecided and independent] people away from voting," said William Hillsman, an independent political advertising consultant. "The more negative a race gets, the more it suppresses voter turnout. A lot of people believe a pox on both their parties. That's part of the strategy here. It will be a real grind-it-out, nasty kind of race, the farthest thing from the 2008 campaign of hope and change."
hendersonn@washpost.com
nakamurad@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 11, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1324 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
She the People
August 11, 2012 Saturday 5:50 PM EST
Paul Ryan, introduced as 'faithful Catholic' on 'human life,' was rebuked by bishops over cuts to poor;
And Ryan's admiration of Ayn Rand is not the "urban legend" he says it is.
BYLINE: Melinda Henneberger
LENGTH: 792 words
No one can say Mitt Romneyhasn't pitched his heart out to Catholicswing voters. On Saturday, he did so again, introducing his new running mate, Paul Ryan, this way: "A faithful Catholic, Paul believes in the worth and dignity of every human life."
He was referring, of course, to Ryan's position against abortion rights. But this spring, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops took the unusual step of repudiating the deep cuts envisioned in Ryan's budget proposal as out of keeping with the teachings of Jesus. One of a series of their letters to congressional committees read in part:
"I write to urge you to resist for moral and human reasons unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition programs [that would] hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong."
In case you're wondering, the same conservative Catholics who so often admonish the doctrinal picking-and-choosing of liberal "cafeteria Catholics'' answered their leaders just as progressive Catholics have responded to chiding they didn't appreciate: "The bishops were wrongon the Ryan budget," the National Catholic Register declared again on Saturday. The cafeteria is open, but the menu doesn't vary much.
Ryan has defended his proposed cuts as not only in keeping with church teaching, but also inspired by its teaching on subsidiarity, which has also caused a family feud:
Ryan "could not tell the difference between subsidiarity and sausage,'' writes Michael Sean Winters in the National Catholic Reporter. "It is true that subsidiarity advocates resolving all social, political and economic issues at the level of social organization closest to the individual. But, it is a two way street. If lower levels of social organization - the family, the community, local government - cannot solve an issue, then it is incumbent upon the higher levels, like the federal government, to step in. Subsidiarity, after all, comes from the Latin word subsidium, help."
Nor is Ryan the kind of Christian who is likely to say, as George W. Bush famously did, that his favorite philosopher is Jesus. Instead, Ryan has said that it was Ayn Rand who inspired him to enter public service. Yes, the Ayn Rand who believed that religion was for the unevolved, and charity an affront to human freedom. She viewed the very idea of a moral commandment as a contradiction in terms, and in "Atlas Shrugged," wrote that faith is "only a short-circuit destroying the mind." In "Anthem," she summed up her own religion this way: "This God, this one word: I.''
Earlier this year, Ryan told the National Review's Robert Costa that his so-called devotion to Rand was an "urban legend," and suggested that he'd read her in college, like everybody, but had rejected that hooey as a grown-up. Ryan, it's true, has certainly never been an atheist.
Only, in a campaign video put out by his own congressional reelection team in 2009, he admiringly described Rand's worldview as "the kind of thinking, the kind of writing we need now. . . . We are living in an Ayn Rand novel, metaphorically speaking. . . . Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism and this to me is what matters most."
Romney has recently stepped up his pitch to Catholics, invoking Pope John Paul II's legacy on his recent trip to Polandand featuring him in a highly effective new campaign ad.
He's capitalized, too, on the claims of American bishops that the Affordable Care Act effectively declared war on religious freedom in this country because religious institutions are henceforth expected to provide birth control, which Catholic teaching bans, as part of health insurance coverage to employees. The bishops also see the Obama administration's definition of religious institutions as too narrow.
Yet the Catholic faith is bigger than one issue and the concerns of believers are more like those of other Americans than they are different, according to a recent Pew poll that shows Catholic voters at this point favoring Obama by a wide margin - 51 percent to 42 percent.
The Post's Chris Cillizza described Romney's vice presidential choice as bold but high-risk, and that's no less true for Catholics, some of whom are sending up prayers of gratitude, and others of intercession.
The Objectivists were unreservedly gladdened, though, and the president of the Atlas Society told Politico the "influence of Rand on Ryan as it relates to the role and nature of government is a huge step forward for the liberty movement."
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political writer and anchors the paper's "She the People" blog. Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1325 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 11, 2012 Saturday 1:13 PM EST
Why the debate over Paul Ryan's budget and Medicare could be as risky for Democrats as for the GOP;
There's a case to be made that when it comes to the debate over Paul Ryan's budget, Democrats could face as much risk as they do reward.
BYLINE: Felicia Sonmez
LENGTH: 824 words
Could Democrats' perceived strength on the issue of Medicare reform wind up being a major weakness?
In the days leading up to Mitt Romney's running-mate announcement, the conventional wisdom among members of both parties on Capitol Hill has been that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would be among the boldest picks the presumptive GOP nominee could make - but that the move would be a non-starter since it would open up the GOP ticket to a barrage of Democratic attacks on Ryan's much-debated budget blueprint.
That C.W. seems to have gone out the window with the news that Romney is expected to tap Ryan for the No. 2 spot this morning at a campaign event in Norfolk.
While Democrats have had success this cycle in hammering Republican congressional candidates over the Ryan budget - particularly its proposed overhaul of federal entitlement programs such as Medicare - there's a case to be made that when it comes to the budget debate, Democrats could face as much risk as they do reward.
The reason? If Democrats slam the GOP ticket with the familiar charge that the Ryan plan would "end Medicare as we know it," Republicans have a counter-argument at the ready: namely, that Democrats backed a national health care law that trims $500 billion in federal spending on the health-care program for the elderly and disabled.
It's an argument that boosted Republicans in the 2010 midterms and one that more recently has been used successfully by candidates such as Mark Amodei, the Republican who bested Democrat Kate Marshall in last September's special election in Nevada's 2nd Congressional District. The district went narrowly for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008.
Amodei's campaign countered Democrats' Medicare-themed attacks in part by running ads featuring the candidate's mother defending him and charging that Marshall was the one who supported cuts to the popular entitlement program.
On the day of the special election, Amodei not only bested Marshall by a 22-percentage-point margin, but GOP polling showed that Amodei had come to be viewed by voters as the more trusted candidate on the Medicare issue.
"The Democrats attacked hard with 'Mediscare' ads, but we defended and counterpunched hard with Obamacare's $500 billion cut," said Rob Stutzman, a California-based GOP media strategist who worked as ad consultant for Amodei's campaign. "We wanted to fight Medicare to a draw but actually won the issue by Election Day."
"Democrats have vulnerabilities on the issue," he added.
Of course, for every point there's a counterpoint, and national Democrats cite the more recent example of this June's special election in Arizona's 8th District, where former Gabrielle Giffords aide Ron Barber (D) bested Republican Jesse Kelly in a hotly contested race in which Medicare loomed large.
One ad run against Kelly by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee featured a middle-aged construction worker named Noel Hatfield who stated that he had paid into Medicare ever since he started working at age 15.
"Jesse Kelly's said that over time, he's going to get rid of Medicare," Hatfield said in the ad. "I don't think it's right for Jesse Kelly and people to decide that I don't get my Medicare that I've been paying for."
Democrats have argued that such ads helped propel Barber to his 6 percentage point victory over Kelly in a GOP-leaning district and that similar TV spots would be effective against Republicans across the country, including at the presidential level.
On top of that, Democrats appear poised to strike back quickly at Republicans over the $500 billion claim. No sooner had we tweeted early Saturday morning about the possibility of a presidential-level fight over the issue than a Democratic operative passed on a memo pointing out that the Ryan budget would maintain the same cuts for which Republicans have slammed their Democratic counterparts on the trail.
"We talk about the Ryan budget kind of a lot," the operative quipped.
So which side is better off on the issue?
The answer will likely come into clearer focus as the dust settles on Romney's V.P. pick. But in the meantime, it's worth considering that last year's special election in New York's 26th District - another race that hinged on the Ryan budget and Medicare, and one that was won by Democrats - was deemed by Factcheck.org to be "a national test market for distorted political claims."
The New York Times' Jackie Calmes in July noted the "messaging mess" that has become of the Medicare debate.
And The Washington Post's Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, has called out both parties formischaracterizing the other side's stance on the issue.
In short, if you thought that Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan would usher in a new phase of the presidential campaign focused squarely on issues and ideas, think again.
And if you thought the candidates' messaging battle was an already bewildering one, the past few months have been only the beginning.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1326 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 11, 2012 Saturday 9:16 AM EST
Romney ad: Obama using 'woman's death for political gain';
Romney hopes to stoke outrage over spurious cancer ad.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 331 words
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is escalating his campaign against a recent dubious super PAC ad, airing his own ad declaring that Obama "will say or do anything to stay in power."
Ad trackers show that the Priorities USA Action ad has not actually aired on television. But Romney is hitting back with his own ad, which according to the campaign will run on TV.
"What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?" the narrator asks. "What does it say about a president's character when he had his campaign raise money for the ad then stood by as his top aides were caught lying about it? Doesn't America deserve better than a president who will say or do anything to stay in power?"
Aides to Obama claimed no knowledge of the details of the Priorities ad, in which steelworker Joe Soptic suggests Romney and Bain Capital are partly responsible for his wife's death by closing his plant. (Our Factchecker gave the spot Four Pinocchios.) Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate with campaigns.
But Soptic has also appeared in an Obama ad and on an Obama campaign conference call. And Obama does support the super PAC - although it's misleading to say that the president raised money for this particular ad.
As we wrote earlier this week, complaints about unfair attacks rarely resonate with the public, but Obama and his allies have gotten an unusual amount of heat over this spot. The media has highlighted facts that make Soptic's story far less damning - most notably, that his wife died five years after the plant closed. White House Communications Director Jay Carney has been pressed repeatedly on the ad.
Romney's campaign is now trying to use that scrutiny to make a larger case that Obama is untrustworthy. Unlike an Obama ad released Friday morning on welfare, Romney doesn't even discuss the attack; his focus is entirely on Obama. If it works, it would be an unusual case of an ad backfiring.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1327 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 11, 2012 Saturday
Regional Edition
Negative-ad overload
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 105 words
Regarding the Aug. 8 front-page article, "Ohio economy improves, but few feel it":
As a native Ohioan, I would find it hard to focus on economic successes while being bombarded with negative campaign ads. Both the Obama and Romney campaigns have hit Ohio hard with TV advertisements denouncing each other. Just last week the Aug. 2 news article "Hundreds of ads a day hitting Ohio" noted the sheer volume of ad attacks Ohioans have to sit through. When all you see and hear is how one candidate or the other wasted billions, destroyed jobs and sent jobs overseas, how is one supposed to see the recovery?
Jackie Wurzelbacher, Arlington
LOAD-DATE: August 11, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1328 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 11, 2012 Saturday
Met 2 Edition
BYLINE: - Felicia Sonmez
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 359 words
A GOP pavilion for women
The issue-advocacy group YG Network is hosting a "women's pavilion" at this month's Republican National Convention in Tampa as part of its "Woman Up!" initiative launched earlier this year.
The group is headed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's former aides John Murray and Brad Dayspring, who also head the Young Guns super PAC, which is aimed at boosting Republicans in congressional races this fall.
The goal of the pavilion, according to YG Network policy director Mary Anne Carter, is "to raise awareness of conservative policies to women by women."
"I think one of the key things here is we need to continue to communicate why conservative policies are best for the country, and women are a target audience for that," Carter, who is also executive director of the "Woman Up!" effort, said in an interview this week. "So this is a great opportunity for us to address a large group of women in a national setting."
The pavilion will play host to panel discussions and presentations mainly from female speakers. And in commemoration of the 92nd anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote, which takes place on the eve of the convention, the pavilion will host a women's suffrage museum.
The initiative comes as the battle for the women's vote has once again moved front and center in the campaign.
In a new campaign ad and at a Colorado event this week, President Obama made a targeted appeal to women, arguing that Republicans would take women's health "back to the 1950s."
The Colorado event featured Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law Center student who earlier this year became a national figure after she was called a "slut" by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh because she backed the health-care law's contraception mandate.
Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has countered with an ad accusing the Obama administration of waging a "war on religion." Republicans also have tapped several prominent GOP women to speak at the convention, which runs from Aug. 27 to 30, including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
- Felicia Sonmez
LOAD-DATE: August 11, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1329 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 11, 2012 Saturday
Met 2 Edition
Provocative politics: Ads don't hold back
BYLINE: Nia-Malika Henderson;David Nakamura
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 789 words
The anti-Romney ad released this week by Priorities USA has been widely skewered as over-the-top and irresponsible, condemned for insinuating that Mitt Romney is to blame for the death of a woman whose husband lost his job and health insurance after Bain Capital bought his steel mill.
Priorities USA is offering no apologies.
The provocative ad from the pro-Obama group - which has yet to actually air as a paid television commercial, according to a political ad tracking company - has drawn as much attention as any single spot so far in the campaign, breaking through a jumble of other messages to dominate the political discussion for days on end.
Increasingly, for campaigns on both sides, that is the entire goal: to somehow rise above a cluttered media landscape, no matter how outrageous a message that requires.
That has led to a flood of statements, ranging from creative to incendiary, by the campaigns and their allies in recent days. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has claimed that Romney did not pay taxes in multiple years. Democrats have produced an ad showing Rep. Allen B. West (R-Fla.) punching a woman. President Obama accused Romney of being Robin Hood in reverse, calling his positions "Romneyhood," which his rival countered by saying the president is full of "Obamaloney." On Thursday, Romney released an ad claiming that Obama is waging a "war on religion."
The push-the-envelope approach is not entirely new. Two years ago, Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina released an eyebrow-raising "demon sheep" ad accusing her rival of being a wolf in sheep's clothing. In the Democratic primaries in 2008, the ad that drew the most attention was a warning from Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign that Obama was not ready to face a national security threat at 3 a.m. - a message conveyed in an ominous ad.
But this year's cascade is notable in part because it is so early - and there seems to be little incentive for either side to tone it down. The trend is so widespread that it has become the subject of aspoof in the Onion, which published a satirical story about a new Obama ad alleging "Romney murdered JonBenet Ramsey."
"It's a knife fight in a telephone booth and there is no conventional referee out there who is going to throw a flag that makes a difference, so there's no downside," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist.
On Friday, Romney shot back at Obama, releasing an ad called "America Deserves Better" that accuses the president of "scraping bottom." The ad asks this question: "What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?"
Bill Burton, who heads Priorities USA, said his group isn't arguing that Romney literally had a hand in the woman's death. "This is one of several stories that we've put into ads to make sure people know about Mitt Romney's business experience and that it has continued to have an impact," Burton said of the minute-long spot.
The need to be more and more outrageous comes amid an explosion of advertising on both sides, a phenomenon driven not only by the record amounts of available cash, but also by the ease - and relative inexpensiveness - of advertising on the Internet.
While both campaigns have continued to air traditional television ads, they and their surrogates also have produced spots aimed solely at Web audiences, in some cases posting videos more than once per day on their official YouTube channels.
Though Internet videos were used in the 2008 cycle, the 2012 campaign has ushered in a far more sophisticated integration, experts said. The Obama and Romney campaigns use Web videos to launch attacks, respond to attacks and target specific interest groups, and often those ads, which cost little to produce, end up on cable television and garner huge audiences.
Most of these Web videos focused on raising questions about Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, accusing him of sending jobs offshore, and about Romney's refusal to release his tax returns. A sampling included titles such as "Mitt Romney: Saying Anything to Get Elected," "Mitt Romney's Bain Secret Exposed" and "Why Would Mitt Romney Invest Millions in the Cayman Islands?"
"It's a calculated use of negative and ridiculous advertising to try to drive [undecided and independent] people away from voting," said William Hillsman, an independent political advertising consultant. "The more negative a race gets, the more it suppresses voter turnout. A lot of people believe a pox on both their parties. That's part of the strategy here. It will be a real grind-it-out, nasty kind of race, the farthest thing from the 2008 campaign of hope and change."
hendersonn@washpost.com
nakamurad@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 11, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1330 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 10, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
A Conservative Bid for Ryan to Be Romney's Running Mate
BYLINE: By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and TRIP GABRIEL; Michael D. Shear reported from Washington, and Trip Gabriel from New York.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 1029 words
WASHINGTON -- Conservatives are increasing the pressure on Mitt Romney again.That Mr. Romney has not yet named his vice-presidential nominee has created an opening for social and economic conservatives to pressure him publicly, and they have taken the opportunity to make an aggressive case for Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.
In rallying around Mr. Ryan, a champion of cutting government spending and reining in the costs of programs like Medicare and Medicaid, conservatives are calling for Mr. Romney to select someone who can push their fiscal agenda, but they also are setting the stage for a possible letdown on the right if Mr. Romney chooses someone else in his race against President Obama. A strongly worded Wall Street Journal editorial on Thursday urged Mr. Romney to pick Mr. Ryan, saying he ''best exemplifies the nature and stakes of this election.''
The editorial follows a fresh wave of public pressure from other conservative outlets for Mr. Romney to erase doubts about his commitment to conservative causes -- an issue that has dogged Mr. Romney since his days campaigning as a liberal Republican for the Senate in Massachusetts.
''The conservative base of the party is so concerned about Obama and his approach to government that they are going to vote for Romney,'' said John Brabender, who was Rick Santorum's chief strategist during his nominating fight with Mr. Romney. ''The question is, are they going to make 10 phone calls to their friends and relatives because they care so passionately? That's going to be somewhat of a challenge.''
The Weekly Standard on Thursday urged Mr. Romney to embrace the conservative principles in Mr. Ryan's budget -- and Mr. Ryan himself as his pick for vice president -- predicting that Democrats will attack him for going after entitlement programs anyway.
''Romney, and Republicans, will be running on the Romney-Ryan plan no matter what,'' The Weekly Standard wrote. That view was echoed by Newt Gingrich, who lost a bid for the Republican nomination to Mr. Romney.
''If Romney needs to defend the Paul Ryan budget, there's no better way than to put Paul Ryan up front to defend it,'' he said, adding that Mr. Ryan could help Mr. Romney in culturally conservative parts of the industrial Midwest.
The not-so-subtle campaign among conservatives on Mr. Ryan's behalf may be moot if Mr. Romney has already made up his mind about a running mate, as some political observers believe. It is possible that Mr. Romney could announce his pick as early as this weekend, while on a scheduled bus tour through swing states. Speaking with Chuck Todd of NBC News on Thursday, Mr. Romney said his choice must add ''something to the political discourse about the direction of the country.''
The names on his shortlist are said to include Mr. Ryan; Senator Rob Portman of Ohio; and Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota.
But the loud, public calls on Mr. Ryan's behalf underscore the wariness with which conservatives have treated Mr. Romney. They suggest that some conservatives remain eager for Mr. Romney to demonstrate that he is, in fact, one of them.
Mr. Romney's campaign added to the concern in the last couple of days on the issue of health care -- a source of lingering suspicion among conservatives because Mr. Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, once championed an individual mandate very similar to the one in Mr. Obama's health law.
In defending Mr. Romney against an attack ad highlighting a cancer patient whose husband lost his job at a steel mill owned by Mr. Romney's firm, the campaign praised the Massachusetts health care plan. In doing so, the campaign came perilously close in the minds of some conservatives to sounding like the president.
''If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care,'' Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney, said Tuesday. That prompted Erick Erickson, of the conservative blog Redstate, to write on Twitter: ''OMG. This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election. Wow.''
But in Iowa earlier, Mr. Romney went out of his way to talk about his health care experience: ''We've got to do some reforms in health care, and I have some experience doing that, as you know.''
Polls suggest that Mr. Romney's transition from primary candidate to presumptive nominee has deeply unified Republicans around his candidacy. Conservative support for Mr. Romney is strong in part because of a dislike of President Obama.
But Mr. Romney could energize conservatives and spur turnout even more by picking someone seen by the most ardent members of that group as someone who will be an uncompromising advocate for conservative principles inside a Romney White House.
The argument is about politics and about governing.
Advocates for Mr. Ryan argue that he would be a boon to Mr. Romney on the ballot by cementing in voters' minds an economic vision for the country that is very different than Mr. Obama's.
''The House budget chairman has defined those stakes well as a generational choice about the role of government and whether America will once again become a growth economy or sink into interest-group dominated decline,'' The Journal wrote.
But conservatives are also looking past November to the kind of White House they want should Mr. Romney win.
For some of those conservatives, a Romney administration stocked with moderate Republicans is almost as bad as a second term for Mr. Obama. And for some of them, even Mr. Ryan is not conservative enough.
Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct mail pioneer, called him ''a nice guy'' but said, ''He is not Tea Party.''
''He's part of the Washington crowd,'' Mr. Viguerie said Thursday. ''His solution is basically a version of Washington, D.C., insanity. His proposal doesn't balance the budget for 28 years.''
Mr. Viguerie said a ticket made up of Washington stalwarts would not motivate conservatives to work hard for Mr. Romney in the fall.
''Since Romney was not the first, second or third choice of most grass-roots conservatives and he spent massive amounts of money trashing conservative candidates, there is a lot of healing that needs to take place,'' he said.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/us/politics/a-conservative-bid-for-paul-ryan-to-be-mitt-romneys-running-mate.html
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Tim Pawlenty, left, and Rob Portman are said to be on Mitt Romney's shortlist for possible vice-presidential nominees. Mr. Romney could announce his choice as early as this weekend, while on a bus tour through swing states. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MAX WHITTAKER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
PHILIP SCOTT ANDREWS/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
Mitt Romney took his presidential campaign to Wisconsin in April, with Representative Paul D. Ryan by his side.(A8)
Mitt Romney, the Republicans' presumptive nominee, leaving his hotel for a campaign event on Thursday night in Manhattan. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY ERIC THAYER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)(A11)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1331 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 10, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Political Memo; The 2012 Cycle: Attack, Feign Outrage, Repeat
BYLINE: By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; THE CAUCUS; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 879 words
The Democratic outrage machine is in full lather.On Wednesday, the talking heads and campaign operatives spewed angry e-mails and Twitter messages about Mitt Romney's latest television ad, which accuses President Obama of wanting to "gut" the work part of welfare to work.
"There is not an independent person that has looked at that ad, not one person that's looked at that and said it's remotely and substantially true," Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to the president's campaign, said on MSNBC on Wednesday morning.
Last month, the outrage was directed at another Romney ad that took a few lines from Mr. Obama about roads and bridges and twisted them into disrespect for small business. The president called it "out of context" and "flat wrong." Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic spokesman, said it was "trumped up, out of context" and "fact-checked to death."
But hang on a minute. Even as they mount their high horses to complain, Democrats are eagerly delivering their own attacks seizing on a snippet or two of Mr. Romney's comments, ignoring whatever he might actually have meant in favor of a quick-and-dirty hit.
On Wednesday, a Democratic "super PAC" began running an ad that essentially accused Mr. Romney of causing the death of a woman whose husband lost his job at a company owned by Mr. Romney's Bain Capital.
Cue the umbrage.
"It's sad and disappointing that President Obama's allies would stoop to such levels in an attempt to impugn Mitt Romney's character," said Amanda Henneberg, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney.
Negative, out-of-context attacks have come to define the 2012 presidential campaign - as has the offense that is inevitably taken. It is the height of political chutzpah, where both sides slide back and forth between perpetrator and victim with no sense of irony along the way.
"This over-the-top crying that both campaigns are doing after they landed these blows - I think the American people are sick of it," said John Weaver, a political strategist who advised Senator John McCain of Arizona for years.
The candidates and their allies should stop "this fake personal injury that they are both going through," Mr. Weaver said. "There's no whining in this business."
And yet, in this political season, the whining has been almost as loud as the barrage of negative attacks that has preceded it.
¶ Democrats howled last year when Mr. Romney's campaign produced an ad showing Mr. Obama saying: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." It turns out, the clip was from 2008, and Mr. Obama was quoting an aide to Mr. McCain.
¶ It was Mr. Romney's turn to cry foul a few months later when Democrats gleefully jumped on Mr. Romney's saying "I like to fire people" and "I'm not concerned about the very poor." They left out the context, he complained, though Democrats paid him no heed.
¶ But turnabout is fair play, it seems. So when Mr. Obama said that the "private sector is doing fine," the same Republicans who insisted on context were suddenly happy to quote the president without any. Complaints came streaming in from the White House and its allies.
¶ And yet, even as the Democrats complained about the private-sector comments, they seized on comments Mr. Romney made the same day about teachers and firefighters. Mr. Romney doesn't care about them, they said, ignoring whatever context there might have been to his remarks.
¶ However much they talked about the importance of context, Mr. Romney's campaign left most of it out in a barrage of ads showing the president saying: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He was talking about roads and bridges, a point that was ignored.
Mike McCurry, a former press secretary for President Bill Clinton, said neither side seems able to control the pace or intensity of the back-and-forth.
"They haven't found the volume knob," Mr. McCurry said.
"There used to be at least a sliding scale of what level of vitriol you would use in a campaign," he added. "You went to the highest level for the highest offense. What happens now is everyone just goes to the loudest and strongest response they can make. It just escalates the temperature of the campaign."
Negative attacks are not new. But in the age of Twitter and Facebook, neither side seems hampered by a concern that it might do something that crosses a line that the other side wouldn't.
On Wednesday, Democrats eagerly spread around a Huffington Post article about some of Bain Capital's initial outside financing coming from a group of Central American oligarchs. The article alleges that some of the investors may have also been financing death squads in El Salvador. The subject line of the e-mail from Mr. Woodhouse read simply: "Death Squads."
Over the weekend, Republicans seized on a lawsuit in Ohio by Mr. Obama's campaign that seeks to allow early voting for all residents, not just military families and those living overseas. In Mr. Romney's telling, though, the lawsuit was an attack on military families.
Each sides has expressed its disdain that the other would stoop so low.
"I remember feigning outrage myself on some days," said Mr. McCurry. "But not at this level. They just seem to be pounding each other."
This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.
URL: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/the-2012-cycle-attack-feign-outrage-repeat/
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Negative, out-of-context attack ads by both sides have come to define the presidential campaign. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY DNC RAPID RESPONSE
ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1332 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 10, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Obama Camp Seeks Distance From an Ad
BYLINE: By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; THE CAUCUS; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 608 words
President Obama's top advisers have spent the last 36 hours trying to put distance between their candidate and a "super PAC" ad that lays the blame for the death of a cancer victim at Mitt Romney's feet.But in doing so, Mr. Obama's staff has been accused of lying by Republicans.
The ad, by Priorities USA Action, features a man named Joe Soptic, who worked at a steel mill owned by Bain Capital, Mr. Romney's private equity firm. In the ad, Mr. Soptic tells the story of his wife's dying of cancer after the plant was shut down by Bain.
"That's when they found the cancer. By then, it was Stage Four. There was nothing they could do for her. She passed away in 22 days," Mr. Soptic says in the ad. "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone. Furthermore, I don't think Mitt Romney is concerned."
The ad has been widely criticized for going too far in suggesting that Mr. Romney is responsible for the death of Mr. Soptic's wife. Federal law does not allow presidential campaigns to coordinate with groups like Priorities USA Action.
Pressed about the ad by reporters, Stephanie Cutter, the deputy campaign manager for Mr. Obama, said she didn't "know the facts about when Mr. Soptic's wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance."
Jen Psaki, a top spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday that "we don't have any knowledge of the story of the family." She was apparently referring to knowledge among campaign staff members of Mr. Soptic's story involving his wife's illness.
But in May, Ms. Cutter led a conference call in which Mr. Soptic was given a platform to tell his story. During the call, Mr. Soptic described the difficulties his family faced after the plant closed, including his wife's cancer. (Ms. Psaki had not rejoined the Obama campaign at the time of the conference call.)
"When the cancer took her away, all I got was an enormous bill," Mr. Soptic said on the call. "It wouldn't have happened if I had my old job at the steel mill."
Mr. Soptic also appeared in an ad produced by Mr. Obama's campaign, though he did not tell the story of his wife's death in that ad.
Aides to Mr. Obama did not say they were unaware of Mr. Soptic's existence, a position which would have been impossible to maintain. But they said they did not know details about his wife's illness, her dealings with insurance and her death.
"No one is denying that he was in one of our campaign ads, he was on a conference call telling his story which many, many people in this country have gone through as there have been layoffs and they have had their benefits reduced," Ms. Psaki said on Thursday. "What is clear here again is that we are focusing so much on an ad that has not run yet that is done by an outside group."
Ms. Psaki and Ms. Cutter have both repeatedly stressed that the campaign did not produce the ad by the super PAC.
But that response has not been enough to satisfy Mr. Romney's supporters, who said Mr. Obama's advisers should be held to account. The Republican National Committee released a video on Thursday asking, "if they're lying about this, what else are they lying about?"
And Mr. Romney's campaign has been aggressive, too.
"President Obama and his campaign are willing to say and do anything to hide the president's disappointing record," said Ryan Williams, a spokesman for Mr. Romney's campaign. "The president and his campaign are intentionally misleading voters about their clear connection to this false and despicable attack because they do not want to talk about his failed economic policies."
This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.
URL: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/obama-campaign-tries-to-distance-itself-from-widely-criticized-super-pac-ad/
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1333 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 10, 2012 Friday
Criticized 'Super PAC' Ad Has Yet to Be Broadcast as a Paid Commercial
BYLINE: JEREMY W. PETERS and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 439 words
HIGHLIGHT: The ad has been played repeatedly on the cable and network news since Priorities USA Action released it earlier this week and has been seen nearly half-a-million times on YouTube.
It is one of the most provocative ads of the presidential campaign so far. A former employee of a steel company that Bain Capital bought out tells how he and his cancer-stricken wife lost their health insurance after he was laid off. He all but blames Mitt Romney for his wife's death.
The ad has been played repeatedly on the cable and network news since Priorities USA Action, the "super PAC" that produced it, released it earlier this week.
One place it apparently has not appeared? During a commercial break.
According to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group, there are no instances of the ad ever running as a paid commercial. Kantar uses technology to track the appearance and frequency of political ads across the country. And so far their data show that the commercial has never been shown on broadcast television or national cable.
Bill Burton, one of the founders of Priorities USA Action, acknowledged that the ad had indeed never been broadcast. But all that free media attention has helped it chalk up nearly half-a-million views online, according to YouTube.
More important for Mr. Burton and his super PAC, however, may be where the ad is being watched. Of the top five states where people are watching the ad, one is California - often in the top because of the size of the state. A reliably Democratic state in presidential elections, California is not a focus of either the Romney or Obama campaign.
But the other four are: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
According to Mr. Burton, who said the ad will eventually run on television, it has been watched by 48,979 people in Florida; 28,473 people in Pennsylvania; 23,739 people in Ohio and 22,887 people in Virginia.
Mr. Burton said that until the ad is broadcast, it will still have limited reach. But the controversy over the ad's premise may have provided millions of dollars in value for Mr. Burton's group.
It would hardly be a new trick for a campaign or political group to release a controversial ad that has little or no money behind it. They know the media is likely to devote extensive coverage to the commercial, giving it more exposure than an expensive ad buy could accomplish.
The Obama campaign attempted a similar trick with an attack ad featuring the same laid-off Bain employee, Joe Soptic. Mr. Soptic starred in a two-minute commercial that featured former workers of a steel mill in Kansas City, Mo. In one of the ad's more memorable lines, a worker likens Mr. Romney to a vampire, saying "He came in and sucked the life out of us."
But the Obama campaign put only $150,000 behind the ad. The ample attention it received on the news? Priceless.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1334 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 10, 2012 Friday
'Independent' Super PACs
BYLINE: ANDREW ROSENTHAL
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 578 words
HIGHLIGHT: Sarah Palin said reporters should go after the Obama campaign for coordinating with a pro-Obama super PAC.
Here's a sentence I thought I'd never write: Sarah Palin raised a good point on Fox News' "Hannity" yesterday. Granted, she couched that point in a lot of nonsense.
In discussing a pro-Obama super PAC's latest ad, which implies that Mitt Romney's to blame for a woman's death from cancer, she said reporters had failed to note possible coordination between the Obama campaign and the super PAC in developing the spot.
"They're basically prostituting themselves for a job, for interview, for access to the Obama administration and the campaign. And they're letting this go on, and it is illegal. It violates the PAC laws. What I would like to see happen is for just one reporter in the mainstream media who knows the truth about this to stand up and do the worthy and ethical thing and let Americans that there was collaboration and also that this is a far-fetched, despicable ad that misrepresents Gov. Romney's position."
Separating the wheat from the chaff: It would be irresponsible for reporters to state that the Obama campaign coordinated with the pro-Obama super PAC, in violation of federal law, because there's no proof of that. But reporters-even mainstream media reporters at this paper and at The Washington Post-have dutifully pointed out that the star of the super PAC ad, Joe Soptic, also appeared in an Obama campaign ad.
That said, I'm glad that Ms. Palin is drawing attention to what's certainly one of the more pressing campaign-finance issues: The fact that theoretically "independent" groups spending money in support of candidates are nothing of the sort. Whether campaign strategists and super PAC employees are brazen enough to literally coordinate (by discussing plans over the phone, say, or sharing money), I don't know. Regardless, there's a "revolving door" between super PACs and campaigns about as glaring as the one between the lobbying industry and government.
Guess who runs the super PAC that produced the cancer ad, Priorities USA Action? Two former White House aides. The connections don't stop there. The Times reported in February that the president "had signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to deliver speeches on behalf of Mr. Obama at fund-raising events for Priorities USA Action."
Of course the "revolving door" holds for Republican groups, too, not just Democratic ones-something I doubt Ms. Palin will mention the next time a right-wing super PAC releases a dishonest ad. A former top aide to Newt Gingrich ran the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future. The Times reported a few months ago that: "When Mitt Romney's presidential campaign needs advice on direct mail strategies for reaching voters, it looks to TargetPoint Consulting. And when the independent 'super PAC' supporting him needs voter research, it, too, goes to TargetPoint." Last year, Mr. Romney spoke at a Central Park fundraiser for that super PAC, Restore Our Future, and he "has publicly encouraged people to donate to it."
As I've said before, "independent" super PACs are about as independent as Bulgaria was from the Soviet Union. I'm glad Ms. Palin and Fox News finally noticed. Now if they'd only support true campaign-finance reform, including a new-and-improved F.E.C that would actually do something when a campaign broke election law, we might get somewhere.
Who's the Real John McCain?
Bundled Up
As You Were
Disclosure Would Be Great. Then What?
Let Them Give Millions
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1335 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 10, 2012 Friday
Romney Advisers Dismiss Recent Dip in Polls
BYLINE: MICHAEL BARBARO and TRIP GABRIEL
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 504 words
HIGHLIGHT: Determined to avoid perceptions that Mr. Romney's support is slipping, a senior adviser said there was no legitimate explanation for the swing in recent polls.
BOSTON -- Advisers to Mitt Romney on Friday dismissed a series of new national polls that showed their candidate's standing had weakened against President Obama, but they conceded that they could not explain what they called a "huge shift" in the numbers.
Determined to avoid perceptions that Mr. Romney's support is slipping, a senior adviser told members of the news media that there was no legitimate explanation for the swing in polls released by Fox News, Reuters/Ipsos and CNN over the past week.
The polls are an ill-timed distraction for the Romney campaign, which is beginning a four-day bus tour on Saturday across the swing states of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.
"Guys, it's the middle of the summer. It's the doldrums," said the senior adviser, who asked not to be identified. "It's the middle of the Olympics. There has not been any national news, anything that would push these numbers from minus 3 to minus 9 points."
"You've got to have something to precipitate that kind of sea change," the adviser said. "The attitudes toward the economy, attitudes on right direction, wrong track haven't changed a bit. It hasn't changed; it is still the same as it was a month ago in terms of attitudes toward the economy."
In a national Fox News poll conducted Sunday through Tuesday, Mr. Obama led Mr. Romney by 9 percentage points, 49 to 40. In July, a Fox News poll showed Mr. Obama with 45 percent to Mr. Romney's 41 percent - but that month-to-month change is within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, and it may not signify an erosion of support for Mr. Romney.
But since Mr. Romney solidified his status as the Republican candidate in late May, his numbers have remained fairly steady in Fox News polls, while Mr. Obama has seen an uptick of 6 points.
And independent voters in the recent Fox poll favored Mr. Obama by 11 percentage points - a jump from a 4-point lead a month ago.
A CNN/ORC pollconducted Tuesday and Wednesday found Mr. Obama with an advantage, 52 percent to 45 percent, a 7-point difference, which is within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4 points on each candidate.
In a briefing about the bus tour at Mr. Romney's campaign headquarters in Boston, the senior adviser batted away suggestions that the candidate was suffering from self-inflicted wounds.
Mr. Romney recently completed a high-profile trip abroad that featured several days of unwelcome headlines from Britain and Israel.
Nor did the adviser explore the potential role of Mr. Obama, whose campaign has pounded Mr. Romney in a torrent of negative commercials, especially in swing states, during the past few weeks.
"I don't know," the adviser said when asked to explain the polling. He said that if the shift in polling were meaningful, it would show up in tracking polls conducts by groups like Gallup and Rasmussen. "And we are not seeing it there," the adviser said.
The Gallup tracking poll for Aug. 3 to 9 had each candidate with 46 percent support among registered voters.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1336 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 10, 2012 Friday
Forcing Flip-Flops
BYLINE: JULIET LAPIDOS
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 495 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mitt Romney has no choice but to vacillate. The G.O.P. won't let him tout his own record.
In 2004, Mitt Romney had this to say about John Kerry's supposed tendency to change his mind:
For those who don't understand how he can be so vacillating, it stems from the fact that he is very conflicted, that he is drawn in two different directions very powerfully. If he's with an audience, he wants to identify with and satisfy that audience, and will say what he thinks they want to hear. And if that audience, for instance, is on one side of an issue he'll follow that, on another, he'll follow another.
Leaving aside whether this is a fair assessment of the 2004 Democratic nominee, Mr. Romney's focus on psychology contrasts nicely with his own "vacillating." Mr. Romney does sometimes say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear, as when he claimed on the 2008 campaign trail that he was a lifelong hunter (before conceding that he'd been hunting twice, once as a teenager, once with G.O.P. donors in Georgia.) But often he's remarkably tone-deaf, saying what no one wants to hear ("I'm not concerned about the very poor," etc.)
Whether he wants to "identify with" and "satisfy" his audience or not, he vacillate because his party all but forces him to - it's the result of external demands as much as internal conflict.
This week, for instance, a pro-Obama super PAC released an ad implicating Bain Capital in a woman's death by cancer. (Briefly: A steelworker lost his job at a plant after Bain closed it down. His wife didn't have health care. She died.) A Romney campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, responded in part: "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."
In another universe, that might have been considered a good comeback: in Massachusetts, thanks to Mr. Romney, if you lose your job you don't lose access to health insurance. Not in this universe. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter berated Ms. Saul for daring to mention the candidate's signature accomplishment, which was the model for the president's signature accomplishment-the Affordable Care Act.
"Andrea Saul's appearance on Fox was a potential gold mine for Obama supporters," Mr. Limbaugh said. "They can say, 'Romneycare was the basis for our health care.'"
Ann Coulter called Ms. Saul a "moron" and said she deserves to lose her job: "Anyone who donates to Mitt Romney, and I mean the big donors, ought to say if Andrea Saul isn't fired and off the campaign tomorrow, they are not giving another dime, because it is not worth fighting for this man if this is the kind of spokesman he has."
Mr. Romney's public-sector record makes the right wing uncomfortable, so he's had to renounce it. And if he tries to draw a line from his past to the present, from the governorship to his candidacy for the president, the right wing wonders if it's "worth fighting for this man."
Mum's the Word
Flip Flopping Away
Mitt Romney, His Money and Identity Politics
Was Romney Right About John Kerry?
Herman Cain and the 'Liberal Media'
LOAD-DATE: August 13, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1337 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 10, 2012 Friday
FINAL EDITION
Closing thoughts on the Olympics;
As the London Games draw to an end, things we'll miss and suggestions for next time
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8A
LENGTH: 1045 words
Every four years, the nation comes together around the Summer Olympic athletes and their compelling stories. Unfortunately, by a coincidence of the calendar, every fourth year also brings the vacuous spectacle that U.S. presidential campaigns have become.
Particularly for people who live in battleground states such as Ohio and Virginia, watching the Olympics has become an endurance sport of its own. The uplifting competition is jarringly juxtaposed with unending, misleading political ads that variously suggest Barack Obama wants everyone on welfare, or Mitt Romney is responsible for a cancer death.
These types of ads clash with the loftiness of the Olympics. They even clash with other ads, which during the Games tend to be especially sentimental, supporting such things as moms and global harmony.
One might think that the political operatives behind these ads would see that they are a turnoff. But the candidates and the super PACs that support them are out to reach the small sliver of voters they think they can impact, and don't care one whit if the other 95% or so are sick of them.
Although the London Games are coming to an end, the negative ad onslaught will continue for three months. Would that it were the other way around.
Fit to be tied. Whatever the Olympics has against ties, somebody ought to fix it before 2016.
U.S. gymnast Aly Raisman was the most talked-about victim of tie-breaking absurdity in London, but not the only one. In the women's gymnastics all-around last week, Raisman tied Russia's Aliya Mustafina for bronze. Both had exactly the same score: 59.566. But after an arcane tie-breaking process, Raisman fell to fourth. No medal. No glory. That Raisman later took home gold and bronze certainly eased the pain, but that's not the point.
Tie-breakers make sense in team sports, when only one team can advance to a playoff or championship game. Or in Olympic trials, where only so many athletes can advance to the Games. But when individual achievement is being recognized and dedicated young athletes finish tied to three decimal points, they all deserve to go home winners.
Trailblazers. In judo, losing a match in a mere 82 seconds is typically considered a crushing defeat. And, indeed, the record book shows Wojdan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shahrkhani of Saudi Arabia lost her Olympic debut, and lost badly.
But that brief match signified a victory for women's rights in the Middle East. Shahrkhani was the first Saudi woman to compete in the Olympics, representing a country that still prohibits women from voting or driving a car.
The 2012 Olympics have been full of milestones for women. For the first time, every participating nation has female representation, thanks to the appearances of women from Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Qatar.
For Shahrkhani and the other female Olympians from Islamic nations, the values of the Olympics offer a stark contrast to daily life back home. For example, while Afghan sprinter Tahmina Kohistani ran a 100 meter preliminary event last week, women in her home nation sat in jail for committing the "moral crime" of running away from home.
While most Olympians are receiving nothing but outpourings of support, Kohistani, Shahrkhani and other Muslim women have been met with hate-filled messages on social media, calling them prostitutes and disgraces to their religion. The participation of these women will not instantly improve conditions, but it represents progress nonetheless.
Kohistani said it best through her tears after coming in last in her 100 meter prelim: "I just opened a new window, a new door, for the next generation of my country."
No amateurs, no miracles. Headed into the final weekend, the U.S. men's basketball team -- led by NBA stars such as Kobe Bryant and LeBron James -- is on track to win its fifth gold medal in the past six Olympics. The women's team is closing in on its fifth consecutive gold.
Good for them, and America, but something is missing.
Before professional athletes were allowed to participate openly in the Games, America used to relish being the underdog. U.S. collegians took on the quasi-professional communist bloc teams and pulled off the occasional against-all-odds upset, none bigger than 1980's "Miracle on Ice" victory in Lake Placid against the mighty Soviet hockey team.
Today, the U.S. Dream Teams are like that Soviet squad. If they win, it's expected. Ho hum. And if they lose, it's a huge blow to national pride.
Sure, today's system is a lot more equitable. It's just not more exciting.
Thrill of victory. Until its regular broadcasts went off the air in 1997, no TV show captured the emotion of sports better than ABC's Wide World of Sports, which promised viewers "the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat" and routinely delivered. These days, nothing on TV captures that extraordinary range of human feeling better than the Olympics, where a lifetime of dreams and years of agonizing training can turn into joy or despair in seconds.
Of course there are moments of agony, for athletes and viewers alike, when the omnipresent cameras get so close to someone who has just lost that you want to snap at NBC and demand a little privacy.
Luckily, though, the cameras tend to dwell on the winners. Watching night after night is like taking a mood-elevating drug that has no bad side effects. In the 200 meter individual medley, for example, American swimmer Caitlin Leverenz placed third, and the camera caught her face as she looked up at the scoreboard and realized she had medaled.
A jaded viewer might think: It's third place. But for Leverenz, 21, who had worked for this from age 7, often getting up before dawn to put in grueling workouts, it was an Olympic medal. Her face showed shocked surprise, a surge of joy and then tears, then joy. The tiny moment was over in seconds, but it was impossible not to be moved.
One pleasure of watching the Olympics is the constant reminder that joy is universal, and that it is difficult not to find yourself grinning when you see the sheer, unfeigned thrill on the face of anyone who has just won gold, silver or bronze.
Too bad it's another two years to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and four more to the next Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We'll be missing the joy long before that.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: photo By Richard Mackson, USA TODAY Union Jack hatter: A young fan of Team USA takes in the London Games.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: EDITORIAL
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1338 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 10, 2012 Friday 9:55 PM EST
Huntsman Sr. wants Romney to release more tax returns;
Huntsman Sr. calls on Romney to release more taxes.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 635 words
Jon Huntsman Sr. calls on Mitt Romney to release more taxes, YG Action spends nearly $6 million on fall ad time, and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) hits Rep. Todd Akin (R) in her first ads of the general election.
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your email inbox every day by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Hawaii Senate primary: Which poll to believe?
Romney ad: Obama using 'woman's death for political gain'
The Fix's Final Five Republican VP picks
Where the tea party has mattered (and where it hasn't)
Meet the political .01% - in 2 charts
Obama plays defense with welfare ad
The lamest week of the 2012 campaign
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* While he says he is not Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's source on Mitt Romney's taxes, Jon Huntsman Sr. (father of former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman Jr.) called on the presumptive GOP presidential nominee to release more of his taxes. Huntsman Sr. is a longtime Romney ally.
* Reid aide Jose Parra is backing off his comment that Reid's source on Romney's taxes is "an investor in Bain Capital, a Republican also, and somebody who has been dealing with Romney's company for a long, long time and he has direct knowledge of this." Parra now says, "I do not know the party affiliation of the source, how long he invested with Bain, or his relationship to Romney beyond the fact that he was an investor with Bain Capital, as Senator Reid has previously stated."
* President Obama adviser David Axelrod says if he were Romney, he would pick former Minnesota governor as his running mate. Pawlenty will be stumping for Romney in New Hampshire on Saturday.
* The pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA, which has taken a lot of criticism this week for an ad that aims to tie Romney to a woman's death, has released a new spot tying Romney to the closure of a steel mill. The new commercial features an employee from the same mill referenced in the controversial spot.
* Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is up with her first TV ads of the general election, spotsthat say Rep. Todd Akin (R) wants to privatize social security and abolish the minimum wage.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* YG Action, a super PAC run by former aides to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, has bought $5.5 million worth of fall ad time in 12 House races, including two in North Carolina, where vulnerable Democratic Reps. Larry Kissell and Mike McIntyre are trying to hold onto their jobs.
* Following a report that Democratic convention planners are working to include Republicans in the program, former Republican senator John Warner has ended any possibility that he will speak, and says he will only be watching both conventions "from the sidelines."
* Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder has endorsed 11th District Republican nominee Kerry Bentivolio. On Tuesday, Bentivolio won the GOP nomination for the seat formerly held by Thaddeus McCotter, despite local Republican efforts to help a write-in candidate defeat him.
* Herb Rule, the Democratic nominee against Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.), has been arrested on DWI charges.
* The Charlotte Douglas International Airport is polling visitors who want to use the airport wireless network about which presidential candidate they prefer.
* Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) is going positive/negative on the air in his campaign against Republican nominee Tom Smith. Casey is following up the release of a positive ad with a negative one seizing on comments Smith has made about trade. Casey is not considered to be terribly vulnerable, so the negative ad is interesting.
THE FIX MIX:
Mike Weinstein. The sequel.
With Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1339 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 10, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Welfare politics
BYLINE: Editorial Board
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A14
LENGTH: 619 words
THE 1996 WELFARE reform law wrought dramatic change. It reduced the rolls from 4.6 million families to 1.7 million by 2009. Child poverty rates fell, and single-mother employment rates went up.
Mitt Romney and his campaign claim the Obama administration has gutted this landmark law. Says a 30-second ad paid for by the Republican National Committee: "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check. Welfare-to-work goes back to being plain old welfare." This is false. The disputed July 12 memorandum from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offers to waive certain provisions in the current law for states that want to try new methods of meeting the work requirement. Even if those waivers did "gut" the work requirement, the main pillars of reform - a fixed federal block grant to the states of $16.5 billion per year, a five-year lifetime limit on federally funded benefits and aggressive caseload reduction goals - would still stand. They would prevent a return to the bad old days of unconditional, lifelong welfare dependency. Of course, given the states' budget woes, it's a mystery why any governor would seek to do that in the first place.
Mr. Romney's sloppy, hyperbolic attack is doubly unfortunate given that welfare was historically a racially fraught issue that reform defused. He and other critics are on firmer ground, however, when they question HHS's authority to change welfare policy, sweepingly or modestly, through a mere executive-branch memorandum.
There's a history here. The 1996 reform effectively ended debate on whether to require work; but arguments over exactly what activity counts as work, and how to measure or monitor it, raged on. Competing experts dispute whether it's more effective to move beneficiaries immediately into a job - the "work first" approach - or to allow more time for education, training or substance-abuse treatment - "human capital development."
When Congress reauthorized welfare reform in 2005, it took into account data supporting "work first" - as well as a Government Accountability Office report showing that some beneficiaries were getting work credit for dubious activities such as journaling. As a result, the measure, which President George W. Bush signed, included more specific work definitions, coupled with stricter reporting requirements for the states. Additionally, it told states that they would be held accountable for keeping caseloads below the 2005 level, not the 1996 level, as the previous law did.
States chafed at the new norms, arguing that the administrative burdens made it hard to meet the ambitious new caseload reduction norms. There is some evidence that they're right. But Congress has failed to agree on a new version of the law, so the 2005 version has been repeatedly extended.
Broadly speaking, the HHS memo embodies a policy approach that critics of the 2005 changes advocated before Congress during the most recent reauthorization attempts, but which Congress, for better or worse, did not adopt. It emphasizes experiments with "human capital"-like approaches - reflecting the new administrative reality in the states and recent evidence from pilot projects in Portland, Ore.
It might work; or, as the more responsible critics fear, waivers might dilute the strong pro-work incentives under existing law. We can't really know until a waiver is granted and a project runs its course. Either way, HHS's legal justification - that the secretary's authority to waive state reports on how to meet the work requirement also permits her to let states redefine the work requirement - strikes us as hard to square with Congress's intent.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1340 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 10, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 255 words
Romney ad focuses on religion
Mitt Romney makes an appeal to the Catholic vote with his latest ad, moving away from the economy to talk about health care and contraception.
President Obama has touted newly expanded contraception coverage in ads aimed at women. Now Romney is using that benefit to say the president declared a "war on religion."
The presumptive Republican nominee's ad features both former Polish president Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II - a clear play for the Catholic (and Polish) vote.
"Who shares your values?" the narrator asks. "President Obama used his health-care plan to declare war on religion, forcing religious institutions to go against their faith."
The reference is to a Health and Human Services regulation that requires insurers to cover contraception without out-of-pocket costs. Churches, synagogues and mosques are exempt. In a compromise designed to quell criticism, church-affiliated employers (such as universities) do not have to directly provide contraception coverage. Instead women will get the coverage directly from insurance companies, at no extra cost. That compromise did not satisfy Catholic critics.
The narrator concludes, "When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?"
Christen Varley, executive director of the social conservative advocacy group Conscience Cause, said the ad sends a message that "religious freedom and freedom of conscience are an issue in the November elections."
- Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1341 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 10, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
What's so wrong about Romneycare?
BYLINE: Melinda Henneberger
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 741 words
At first, I wondered what Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul had done that was so unredeemable. From the freak-out on the right, you'd think she'd said that the Earth was warming, or that we can't raze the deficit through cuts alone.
Instead, Saul earned her pay by briskly smacking down a truly scurrilous attack on her boss - an ad so bad it was guaranteed to turn voters off. Before the ad even aired, other than in news reports, she put to rest any suggestion that Romney might bear some responsibility for the cancer death of a woman whose steelworker husband had lost his job and health insurance after Romney's Bain Capital shuttered his plant.
"If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health-care plan," Saul told Fox News Channel, "they would have had health care."
Now, that answer did have the benefit of being true. But for conservatives, it brought back irksome memories of Romney's middle-of-the-road governorship, his signature achievement in particular. Romneycare wasn't a secret, of course, but Saul seemed to think it was something to brag about.
(An ObamaWorld equivalent? This would be like a White House spokesman answering a question about something that never happened - say, his birth in Kenya - by saying, "Hey, that reminds me of a funny story about Jeremiah Wright . . .")
Naturally, Ann "if Romney is the nominee, we'll lose" Coulter was the first to call for Saul's head, but she wasn't riding solo in the posse. My favorite expression of outrage was John Podhoretz's humorous tweet Thursday that Saul had just informed his kids he ate out non-kosher.
In case you were worried for her job, Saul is not going to wind up like that steelworker: "Andrea goes out each day to defend against President Obama's false attacks and consistently puts points on the board when she posts up against his campaign,'' Romney communication director Gail Gitcho said in an e-mail. "She has the confidence of the Governor and the entire organization."
Romney does have a reputation for personal loyalty. And you can't launch "Women for Mitt" one day and fire a top female aide the next, especially after making a similar remark yourself.
After Romney was cheered at an Iowa event on Wednesday, for vowing to squelch the Affordable Care Act ASAP, he added, "That doesn't mean that health care is perfect. We've got to do reforms in health care and I have some experience doing that, as you know. And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care."
No, this probably wasn't a wily pitch to independent voters, because Romney is still on surprisingly shaky ground with his base. A Republican strategist I spoke to Thursday said both Saul's remarks and Romney's had astonished one and all because they seemed so out of touch.
"He spent the entire primary trying to prove he'd moved away from [Romneycare], and now they're embracing it?"
On the bright side for Romney, it's August, and unless he keeps plugging what moderates like best about him, this unfortunate moment of truth will be forgotten long before November. It won't change a single vote, or even keep any Republicans home, but it does guarantee that an issue the president formerly didn't seem to want to talk about much more than Romney did will be front and center during the presidential debates. It's a reminder of how tenuous Romney's place in conservative hearts is.
But it's also another signal that pro-Obama super PACs aren't always super suave - or in this case, even minimally fair. The Priorities USA ad neglected to mention that Romney had left Bain by the time steelworker Joe Soptic's employer in Kansas City, Mo., declared bankruptcy. Or that Soptic's wife, Ranae, died five years after the plant closed.
Even the wildly out-of-context "You didn't build this" ads against Obama didn't accuse him of killing anyone. That is Vince Foster territory, and puts the oeuvre of the group run by former Obama aide Bill Burton in the tiny pantheon of ads so bad they backfired.
This one has earned a spot right between Jon Corzine's classy '09 attack on Chris Christie's weight and Jerry Kilgore's famous 2005 hit on Tim Kaine, a commercial in which one of the nicest guys in politics morphs into Hitler.
It's good to know there are some limits, even for super PACs.
hennebergerm@washpost.com
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political writer and anchors the paper's She the People blog. Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1342 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 10, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Guantanamo's must-see TV? It's chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool.
BYLINE: Al Kamen
SECTION: A section; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 891 words
One might assume that only Will Smith-o-philes and serious devotees of '90s pop culture would still seek out "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air," the sitcom starring Smith that ran from 1990 to 1996. But the series has an unlikely fan base: Gitmo prisoners.
The Miami Herald reports that early episodes of the show have replaced the Harry Potter book series as the most-requested items by detainees at the Guantanamo Bay library. To keep up with demand, the librarian just ordered all six seasons of the show, the Herald reports, while the Harry Potter books are sooo 2011. "They're over that," the librarian says of the boy-wizarding series. Oddly, too, Bill Cosby enjoyed a brief surge in popularity among the Gitmo population, the librarian noted.
Why, we wondered, might the TV show - which featured Smith as a tough kid from the streets of Philadelphia who comes to live with upper-crust relatives in a tony California neighborhood - strike a chord with Gitmo denizens?
"Any diversion is welcome," says Washington human-rights attorney David Remes, who represents 17 prisoners there.
Once he left a copy of the dystopian novel "1984" for an English-speaking client, who later told him that the book "perfectly captured the psychological reality of living at Guantanamo." Remes thinks the prisoners would prefer that kind of serious fare to more frivolous offerings such as Harry Potter and the "Fresh Prince" gang.
"They do not have a rich cultural life there," he says.
Guantanamo's library, housed in an air-conditioned trailer, includes a "multilingual collection of books that mostly circulate in Arabic, Pashto, English and French," the Herald reports. Other hot titles: President Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" and George W. Bush's "Decision Points."
Recycle that rhetoric
Next month, it will be 25 years since Vice President Biden's plagiarism of speeches by former British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock and by former Democratic leaders derailed his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Of course, it was later revealed that speechwriters, not the speakers, were the authors of some of the more memorable passages that Biden lifted.
We were reminded the other day of that famous incident after a Loop Fan alerted us to a post by Jeffrey Lewis on the liberal Arms Control Wonk blog.
The post concerned a paragraph from a speech a couple of years ago by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.): "A central tenet of the Obama Administration's security policy is that, if the U.S. 'leads by example' we can 'reassert our moral leadership' and influence other nations to do things. It is the way the President intends to advance his goal of working toward a world free of nuclear weapons and to deal with the stated twin top priorities of the Administration: nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism."
That passage, Lewis noted, is virtually identical to one in a statement submitted for the record last week by Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), who chairs a House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces.
Lewis speculated, correctly, as we found out, that a committee aide who had formerly worked for Kyl included it in Turner's statement for the Armed Services Committee.
The two lawmakers share pretty much the same views, so the aide might have liked Kyl's language - maybe even wrote it? - and could have figured it would read just as well for Turner. The miscue was "inadvertent," we were told.
Well, could you perhaps argue that there's no plagiarism, since you can't plagiarize yourself? And since it's rare that any politician in this town actually writes his or her own stuff these days, we're guessing this sort of "rhetorical pilfering," as our late colleague Mary McGrory called it, happens a lot. But the committee wasn't amused. This was a "regrettable error," committee spokesman Claude Chafin said in a statement this week. Turner "had no way of knowing that unattributed comments were included" in that statement.
"We regret the error and will make every effort to ensure it does not happen again," Chafin said, adding that the committee will correct the record to attribute that passage to Kyl.
Might not be a good thing to make too much of a fuss about it.
After all, after Biden's candidacy imploded, the Democrats ended up nominating Michael Dukakis.
Quote of the week
This week's winner is GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who said, wistfully, that things just aren't like they used to be.
"You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad," Romney said on Bill Bennett's radio program, "Morning in America." "They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them."
This from someone who just received a maximum Four Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler for an ad about Obama's welfare policies that even Newt Gingrich said had no proof to support it.
(For the record: we've never, ever gotten more than one Pinocchio.)
kamena@washpost.com
With Emily Heil
The blog: washingtonpost.com/intheloop. Twitter: @InTheLoopWP.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1343 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 10, 2012 Friday 6:19 PM EST
The lamest week of the 2012 campaign;
Teh past seven days have seen both President Obama and Mitt Romney sink to new lows.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1050 words
It's official: The 2012 presidential campaign has hit rock bottom.
In the course of the last week, the following things have occurred:
* Senate Majority Leader , but refused to name his source.
* President Obama referred to the Republican presidential nominee as "Romney Hood" because he allegedly robs from the poor to give to the rich.
* Romney dubbed Obama's alleged exaggerations about his record as "Obama-loney."
* A Democratic super PAC ran an ad that not-so-subtly suggested that Romney's actions led to the death of a woman.
* The Romney campaign released an ad accusing Obama of working to "gut" welfare reform, a claim that independent fact-checkers found highly questionable.
To be clear: This has not been a campaign that, to date, has brought out the best in politicians - or the people who cover them. But this week feels as though we have passed from the sort of occasional hijinks that define almost every political campaign and wandered into a downright mean-spirited smallness that seems uniquely ill-suited to the dire situation facing the country. (Fiscal cliff, anyone?)
Put another way - with a hat tip to Outlook editor Carlos Lozada for the idea - the campaign has come to resemble a 3rd grade insult fest at a time when people seem to be yearning for some adult supervision.
So, what gives? Why does this week seem so much worse than the weeks that have come before it?
Theories abound - most of them (surprise, surprise) with a partisan tinge.
Democrats insist that Romney is panicking amid national and swing state polling showing him falling behind Obama. "Obama has his foot on Romney's throat and might finish him off this summer," said Democratic consultant Jim Jordan. "And Romney is, therefore, desperate."
Republicans argue that Democrats started it - did we mention the 3rd grade-ization of the race over the past week? - and that they are now simply responding in kind.
We tend to agree with Matt Bennett, a veteran of the Clinton White House, who suggested that August has traditionally been a time when the smallness of political campaigns comes to the fore.
"August is a bad month for politics," said Bennett. "Voters aren't really paying attention, especially during the Olympics, and the campaigns are just vamping as they prepare for the conventions and the fall."
The campaign has been in what amounts to a holding pattern since the start of the Olympics, which blots out the sun in terms of media coverage (and voter interest) and doesn't end until Sunday.
Add to that Olympic blackout the fact that we remain in a holding pattern regarding the identity of Romney's running mate, and you have lots of antsy campaign operatives with nothing better to do than take potshots at one another while almost no real voters are paying attention.
Things should change - hopefully for the better - soon. Romney's vice presidential pick could come as soon as today and the Republican National Convention starts in just 17 days. We are only 54 days away from the first presidential debate and just 88 days away from the election.
With the days before voters render their decision dwindling, neither party can afford another week like this one. Or so we hope.
Signs of economic progress?: Don't look now, but the long-stalling economy is showing at least some signs of recovery.
The Post's Zach Goldfarb and Michael Fletcher report that housing prices and new home construction are rising, hiring increased last month, exports have picked up, and those seeking unemployment insurance has dropped significantly.
Of course, all of those measures generally take a back seat to the jobs report, where the unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent last month and the number of jobs created continues to fall shy of where economists say it needs to be to jumpstart the economy.
The other measures, of course, could help Obama make that case that progress is being made. But they are significantly harder to explain.
Chicago Tribune says Obama should denounce ad: Obama's hometown paper editorial board, the Chicago Tribune, is calling on him to denounce the controversial Priorities USA ad featuring Joe Soptic blaming Romney for his wife's death.
"The right tactical decision by the White House might be to keep its distance," the board wrote. "But the right ethical decision would be to call out the people working on the president's behalf for this dishonorable message.
"Mr. President, lift the campaign. Call this ad what it is: a disgrace."
The White House and Obama campaign have distanced themselves from the ad but haven't weighed in on whether it's appropriate. The Tribune joins an increasing media backlash against the ad.
Fixbits:
The Democratic National Convention will feature some Republicans.
A new Obama TV ad fights back against the Romney campaign's welfare charges.
Newt Gingrich does Romney another (ahem) favor, saying "I don't particularly dislike him as a person."
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.'s (D-Ill.) staff says he will seek reelection and will return soon from a depression-related absence.
Rep. Michael Grimm's (R-N.Y.) problems mount: he failed to disclose a privately funded trip to Cyprus. The trip was funded by a group whose CEO was recently arrested on federal corruption charges.
Rep. David Cicilline's (D-R.I.) primary challenger, Anthony Gemma, says his jobs plan "will be remembered as the opening engagement in a New Industrial Revolution for the 21st century." And an intern for the GOP candidate in the race, Brendan Doherty, got caught requesting campaign materials from Cicilline's campaign.
Former Minnesota state senator Tarryl Clark debuts a new ad featuring the endorsement of Bill Clinton in the Democratic primary to face Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.).
Must-reads:
"Sen. Sherrod Brown targeted by U.S. Chamber, outside conservative groups" - Paul Kane, Washington Post
"Obama the candidate emerges on Colorado trip, with political ferocity" - Scott Wilson, Washington Post
"Romney Faces Pressure From Right to Put Ryan on Ticket" - Michael D. Shear, New York Times
"Tim Pawlenty waits to see if his campaigning will lead to vice presidential nod" - Michael Leahy, Washington Post
"In Real Estate Deal, Romney Made His Loss a Couple's Gain" - Mike McIntire, New York Times
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1344 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 10, 2012 Friday 4:29 PM EST
Romney's economic scorecard: Promising success, comparing records;
The GOP candidate campared his economic record as a governor with Obama's record as president. Do his comparison's match the facts?
BYLINE: Josh Hicks
LENGTH: 1818 words
"My Plan for a Stronger Middle Class will get our economy moving again, and Americans can use this scorecard to hold me accountable."
- From the Mitt Romney campaign Web site
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney last week unveiled an "accountability scorecard" that invites voters to track his performance on the economy if he defeats President Obama in November. A quote on the sheet reminds potential scorekeepers that the president predicted that his administration would be "a one-term proposition" if his policies didn't turn the economy around in three years.
The scorecard outlines Romney's goals for future measurements, but it also compares Obama's presidency with Romney's term as governor of Massachusetts, using simple up and down arrows to signify the two men's respective records on various economic indicators: jobs, unemployment, home prices, budget deficits and family income.
For what it's worth, Romney's campaign first presented its scorecard after the Tax Policy Center released a report saying that the net effect of the GOP candidate's tax proposals would be a higher burden for the middle class. We deemed that study to be fair after examining it for a column that covered an Obama campaign ad.
Romney also unveiled a new five-point "Plan for a Stronger Middle Class" that essentially repackages his older and relatively detail-deficient proposals for boosting the sluggish economy. His points include trimming the deficit, expanding trade, improving education and job-training programs, achieving energy independence and promoting small-business growth - pretty standard campaign fare.
As for the scorecard, let's go through it to determine whether Romney's simple arrows paint an accurate picture of the candidates' records.
The Facts
Jobs and Unemployment
Data from the Bureau of Labor statistics shows that Massachusetts added 50,000 jobs during Romney's tenure in office. But that number represents only 1.5 percent growth for the Bay State, compared to a higher 5 percent increase for the nation as a whole during the same period. (We used seasonally adjusted data for our comparisons).
The scorecard indicates that Obama's jobs numbers declined, which is true if you count his entire term to date, during which employment has dropped about .2 percent. But most of the job losses occurred while the president was trying to reverse a severe recession - one that he inherited.
Since the downturn ended in June 2009, the United States has added about 2.7 million jobs. That represents an increase of 2 percent, which is nothing to gloat about, but a positive trend nonetheless.
In terms of combined underemployment and unemployment, the level in Massachusetts decreased from 241,000 to 223,000 while Romney was in office, representing a decrease of 7.5 percent. That's compared to a drop of about 15 percent for the country as a whole.
(Note: We found state "underemployment" data on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' geographic profiles page, while data for the United States is available through Table A-8 of the bureau's historical data on Current Population Surveys. The term "underemployment" covers individuals who worked 35 hours and couldn't find full-time work because of economic conditions.)
As for Obama, the nation's combined underemployment and unemployment level has risen by 4.7 percent since he took office. But it's fallen by 11.6 percent if you start counting at the end of the recession.
With unemployment rates, Massachusetts dropped .9 percentage points under Romney, while the United States fell by 1.4 percentage points during the same period.
You can see the recurring pattern here. Massachusetts' numbers improved under Romney, but the Bay State didn't keep pace with the nation as a whole.
Under Obama, the U.S. rate has risen .5 percentage points since he took office. But it's down 1.2 percentage points since the end of the recession.
Home prices
Experts generally agree that governors have little power to control home prices, but we'll entertain this comparison.
Price indexes from the Federal Housing Finance Agency show that home values increased during Romney's tenure, just as the candidate's scorecard suggests. Data from the agency indicate that home prices rose nearly 26 percent while he was in office.
But that figure for Romney's whole term hides a 1.5 percent drop that occurred from the start of fiscal year 2006 through the last quarter of his administration. Nationwide, the home-price index grew nonstop during Romney's tenure, and the numbers rose faster than they did in Massachusetts - 33 percent for the United States compared to 26 percent for the Bay State.
Home prices for the nation as a whole rose at unprecedented rates during the period Romney was in office, so it's logical that they increased in Massachusetts, as well. But we should note that the housing market was actually overheated during that time, which is part of the reason the bubble burst so spectacularly.
During the Obama years, home prices have fallen by 7.9 percent for the nation as a whole. But that's no surprise considering that the president took office shortly after the housing market collapsed. Few experts disagree that a drop in values was necessary and inevitable in recent years.
"This is the correction of a bubble," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research. "Do you blame someone in office for home prices that were totally out of line with reality? Why wouldn't we want them to be brought back down to Earth?"
Romney has agreed with Baker in the past. He told the Las Vegas Review-Journal last year that the government should let home prices collapse so that the housing market can move into a recovery phase sooner.
"Don't try and stop the foreclosure process," the GOP candidate said. "Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes. Put renters in them. Fix the homes up, and let it turn around and come back up."
Romney is trying to have it both ways. He encourages the government to let home values hit bottom, but he criticizes the president because prices have fallen.
For what it's worth, the FHFA price index shows a slight uptick in home values during the first quarter of 2012, and monthly data from the agency suggests that the second quarter will show improvement as well.
Budget Deficit
Comparing Romney and Obama on the issue of budget deficits is misleading, because Massachusetts law requires the state to balance its budget every year. Romney had no choice but to sign a balanced budget every year.
Nonetheless, the Bay State can experience deficits when revenues come in lower than expected. This happened just before Romney took office, forcing his administration to implement emergency cuts and work with lawmakers to close a $3 billion gap during his first year.
Romney's successor faced a similar predicament. According to news reports from late 2006, the GOP candidate warned incoming Gov. Deval Patrick (D) that the state could face a deficit of between $400 million and $1 billion because of lower-than-projected revenues.
Unlike Massachusetts, the federal government can run deficits, and the numbers are not good for Obama. The gap between spending and revenues has increased during his administration, rising from $641 billion during Bush's last year to $1.3 trillion for the 2011 budget cycle, according to historical tables from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
But as we noted in a previous column about Obama and the national debt, Congress has rejected some of the president's proposed policies - such as tax hikes on upper earners - that probably would have lowered the deficit. On the flipside, Obama's opponents contend that tax hikes could hamper economic growth, ultimately making the revenue problem worse.
We should note that the Budget Control Act, which resolved last summer's debt-ceiling standoff, is estimated to reduce the deficit by $2.1 trillion over the next decade. So it's not as though the president hasn't done anything at all to address deficit spending - just not as much as Republicans want, or using the means they prefer.
Family Income
Data from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the Bay State's median family income rose from $49,855 before Romney took office to $55,330 during his last year. Two important caveats: 1.) The median dropped during Romney's final year relative to 2005; 2.) Those numbers aren't inflation-adjusted.
The median family income in Massachusetts fell by $687 from 2005 to 2006, so the trend wasn't always positive during Romney's tenure. Furthermore, inflation-adjusted numbers show that the median income dropped by 1 percent during the span of his administration. That's compared to a 1 percent increase for the nation as a whole during the same period.
The president's numbers are worse than Romney's, at least up until 2010, which is the last year of data available through the Census Bureau. In 2010 dollars, the U.S. median family income dropped from $62,300 the year before Obama took office to $60,400 during the last year on record, representing a decrease of about 3 percent.
The median income may have improved since then, just like most other economic indicators. But it's a pretty safe bet that the gains wouldn't put the president in positive territory compared to the day his administration started.
The Pinocchio Test
The scorecard's simple arrows don't account for the fact that Massachusetts lagged behind the nation as a whole in certain areas of the economy - jobs, home values and family incomes - while Romney was in office.
The scorecard also hides the fact that some economic conditions deteriorated for Massachusetts during the candidate's last year in office, as is the case with home values and family income.
As for the budget-deficit comparison, it suggests Romney had a choice about whether to balance the Bay State's budget during each year of his administration. But Massachusetts law required him to do so.
Finally, the scorecard gives the president no credit for taking office in the midst of the most severe recession in modern times. Obama's numbers are generally positive since the end of the downturn, even if the recovery has been relatively slow. Democrats would argue that Congress is as much to blame as the president for that.
Nothing on Romney's scorecard is flat-out false, but just about all the comparisons either lack context or ignore facts that contradict its assertions. Overall, the Romney campaign earns two Pinocchios.
Two Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1345 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
She the People
August 10, 2012 Friday 4:26 PM EST
What's so bad about RomneyCare? Just ask Andrea Saul.;
Even the wildly out-of-context "You didn't build this" ads against Obama didn't accuse him of killing anyone.
BYLINE: Melinda Henneberger
LENGTH: 745 words
At first, I wondered what Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saulhad done that was so unredeemable.
From the freak-out on the right, you'd think she'd said the Earth was warming - not likely, given her past employment for climate-change skeptics - or that we can't raze the deficit through cuts alone.
Instead, Saul earned her pay by briskly smacking down a truly scurrilous attack on her boss - an ad so bad it was guaranteed to turn voters off. Before the commercial even aired, other than in news reports, she put to rest any suggestion that Romney might bear some responsibility in the cancer death of a woman whose steelworker husband had lost his job and health insurance after Romney's Bain Capital shuttered his plant.
"If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health-care plan," Saul told Fox News, "they would have had health care."
Now, that answer did have the benefit of being true. But for conservatives, it brought back irksome memories of Romney's middle-of-the-road governorship, his signature achievement in particular. RomneyCare wasn't a secret, of course, but Saul seemed to think it was something to brag about.
(An ObamaWorld equivalent? This would be like a White House spokesman answering a question about something that never happened - say, his birth in Kenya - by saying, "Hey, that reminds me of a funny story about Jeremiah Wright...")
Naturally, Ann "if Romney's the nominee, we'll lose" Coulter was the first to call for Saul's head. My favorite expression of outrage, though, was John Podhoretz's humorous Thursday tweet that Andrea Saul had just informed his kids he ate out non-kosher.
In case you were worried for her job, Saul is not going to wind up like that steelworker: "Andrea goes out each day to defend against President Obama's false attacks and consistently puts points on the board when she posts up against his campaign,'' Romney communication director Gail Gitcho said in an email. "She has the confidence of the Governor and the entire organization."
Romney does have a reputation for personal loyalty. And you can't launch "Women for Mitt" one day and fire a top female aide the next, especially after making a similar remarkyourself.
After Romney was cheered at an Iowa event on Wednesday, for vowing to squelch the Affordable Care Act asap, he added, "That doesn't mean that health care is perfect. We've got to do reforms in health care and I have some experience doing that, as you know. And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care."
No, this probably wasn't a wily pitch to independent voters, because Romney is still on surprisingly shaky ground with his base. A Republican strategist I spoke to Thursday said both Saul's remarks and Romney's had astonished one and all because they seemed so out-of-touch.
"He spent the entire primary trying to prove he'd moved away from [Romneycare], and now they're embracing it?"
On the bright side for Romney, it's August, and unless he keeps plugging what moderates like best about him, this unfortunate moment of truth will be forgotten long before November. It won't change a single vote, or even keep any Republicans home, but does guarantee that an issue the president formerly didn't seem to want to talk about much more than Romney did will be front and center during the presidential debates. It's a reminder of how tenuous Romney's place in conservative hearts is.
But it's also another signal that pro-Obama super PACs aren't always super suave - or in this case, even minimally fair. The Priorities USA ad neglected to mention that Romney had left Bain by the time steelworker Joe Soptic's Kansas City employer declared bankruptcy. Or that Soptic's wife Ranae died five years after the plant closed.
Even the wildly out-of-context "You didn't build this" ads against Obama didn't accuse him of killing anyone. That is Vince Foster territory, and puts the ouevre of the group run by former Obama aide Bill Burton in the tiny pantheon of ads so bad they backfired.
This one has earned a spot right between Jon Corzine's classy '09 attack on Chris Christie's weight and Jerry Kilgore's infamous 2005 hit on Tim Kaine, a commercial in which one of the nicest guys in politics morphs into Hitler.
It's good to know there are some limits, even for super PACs.
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political writer and anchors the paper's She the People blog. Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1346 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 10, 2012 Friday 4:09 PM EST
When campaign ads backfire;
There has been lots of ridiculousness in the 2012 presidential campaign, but for the first time, it seems possible that each side may be paying a price for their over-the-top ads.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1050 words
There has been no shortage of ridiculousness in the 2012 presidential campaign, but for the first time, it seems possible that each side may be paying a price for their over-the-top ads.
The Romney campaign's new welfare ad and a Democratic super PAC ad featuring a man who essentially blames Mitt Romney and Bain Capital for his wife's death have broken new ground (or crossed the line) in an ad war that is constantly ratcheting up.
And in both cases, there is anecdotal evidence that they could be doing more harm than good.
Priorities USA Action's ad, featuring laid-off GST Steel worker Joe Soptic, has proven so toxic and controversial that the White House and Obama campaign have distanced themselves from it.
In the latter case, that's raised some eyebrows. Obama campaign aides said Wednesday that they had no knowledge of the backstory behind Soptic's version of events (which CNN reported has holes in its timeline), but it turns out Soptic himself had told the story on a conference call hosted by the Obama campaign in May, and he has also appeared in an Obama campaign ad.
In addition, Time's Mark Halperin wrote a missive on the magazine's website Wednesday stating that the ad was clearly out of bounds.
"Responsible journalists will continue to do their best in the Freak Show environment to truth squad every ad, video and communication," Halperin wrote. "But when lines of decency are crossed, more strenuous efforts are required."
Priorities USA founder Bill Burton defended the ad Wednesday night on CNN, saying that it didn't imply that Romney was responsible for the woman's death (turns out she died of cancer five years after Soptic was laid off, and GST didn't provide her primary insurance). But that's pretty clearly the implication of the ad and it's intended message, even if it's not stated outright.
"The point of this ad is that - you know, it's to tell the story of one guy, Joe Soptic, and the impact on his life that happened for years, and to this day, as a result of decisions that Mitt Romney made," Burton said in response to a grilling from CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
Likewise, Romney's campaign is having a hard time with an ad that it produced that accuses Obama of gutting welfare reform. The ad says that "under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Fact-checkers, including the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, have derided the ad as plainly false. Kessler gave it four pinocchios - the highest degree of falsehood.
Enter Newt Gingrich, whom the Romney campaign dispatched Wednesday to defend the attack.
It didn't go well.
During an appearance on "Anderson Cooper 360" Wednesday night, Gingrich acknowledged that there was "no proof" for the accusation that Obama would "gut" the welfare-to-work program and suggested he would have used different language in the ad.
"We have no proof today, but I would say to you, under Obama's ideology, it is absolutely true that he would be sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing," he said.
Ouch. You don't often see surrogates so thoroughly undercut their campaign's message.
We've argued recently on this blog that out-of-context ads tend to work, provided there is a modicum of believable justification and the media don't call them out. It may not be right or just, but most keen observers recognize that fact.
But if the media are emboldened to grill campaign aides and surrogates on the ads they are putting on the air, and the attack becomes so utterly discredited, there is a point at which the ads can backfire.
We're not sure if we're there yet, but the onslaught of out-of-context and truth-bending ads by the campaigns seems to have put some in the media over the brink. And the ad game has changed, at least somewhat.
Adelson sues National Jewish Democratic Council: Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson filed a $60 million lawsuit against the National Jewish Democratic Council on Wednesday, claiming the group was guided by political motivations when it claimed he approved of prostitution at an overseas casino he owned. Adelson denies that he approved of prostitution at his Macau casinos.
The suit is notable because it comes just a week after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, under threat of legal action, apologized to Adelson and retracted statements alleging much the same thing.
Adelson has donated $10 million to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future and many millions more to other Republicans, making him a top target of Democrats who have tried to undercut the influence of his money by sullying his reputation. But Adelson's access to the best legal representation money can buy may make Democrats think twice before they take a swipe at him in the future.
Fixbits:
Obama announces that he opposes the Boy Scouts' ban on gays.
Los Angeles Mayor and Democratic National Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa says Sarah Palin was more qualified to be vice president than Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) says he never asked for a waiver on the welfare-to-work program, as the White House has contended.
American Crossroads head Steven Law says the $300 million his group aims to raise will be "dwarfed" by labor unions.
Gingrich endorses former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson in the state's GOP Senate primary on Tuesday.
A letter to the editor in Missouri provides anecdotal evidence that Democratic efforts to elevate Rep. Todd Akin in that state's GOP Senate primary succeeded.
A new internal poll for Rep. Joe Donnelly's (D-Ind.) Senate campaign shows him leading state Treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) 41 percent to 40 percent.
The House Majority PAC, AFSCME and SEIU are teaming up for a six-figure ad buy against Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). Here's the ad.
Must-reads:
"Colorado poses new challenges for Obama" - Bill Turque, Washington Post
"The one chart you need to read about the Latino vote" - Jordan Fabian and Ana Maria Benedetti, Univision
"Why the Obama Super PAC Ad Is Different" - Mark Halperin, Time
"Obama's welfare waiver upsets the political right, but will it end work rules for the poor?" - AP
Sean Sullivan contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1347 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 10, 2012 Friday 3:07 PM EST
Young Guns to bring 'women's pavilion' to Republican National Convention in Tampa;
A sister entity of the super PAC founded by two top aides to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is seeking to better communicate the conservative message to women.
BYLINE: Felicia Sonmez
LENGTH: 812 words
This story has been updated.
Women aren't just being wooed by the presidential candidates this election - they're also being courted at this summer's national party conventions.
The issue-advocacy group YG Network is hosting a "women's pavilion" at this month's GOP convention in Tampa as part of its "Woman Up!" initiative launched earlier this year.
The group is headed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's former aides John Murray and Brad Dayspring, who also head the Young Guns super PAC aimed at boosting Republicans in congressional races this fall.
The goal of the pavilion, according to YG Network policy director Mary Anne Carter, is "to raise awareness of conservative policies to women by women."
"I think one of the key things here is we need to continue to communicate why conservative policies are best for the country, and women are a target audience for that," Carter, who is also executive director of the "Woman Up!" effort, said in an interview this week. "So this is a great opportunity for us to address a large group of women in a national setting."
The pavilion will be located one block away from the convention venue, the Tampa Bay Times Forum, and will play host to panel discussions and presentations mainly from female speakers to be announced over the next two weeks.
Among the panels will be one on the euro crisis, at which six members of the European parliament are expected to speak, and another on health care policy, featuring Grace-Marie Turner, president of a nonprofit promoting free-market ideas for health care reform.
The venue will also have a retail area, a media area for press conferences, a cafe and a health and wellness center. And in commemoration of the 92nd anniversary of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote, which takes place on the eve of the convention, the pavilion will host a women's suffrage museum.
The initiative comes as the battle for the women's vote has once again moved front-and-center in the campaign.
In a new campaign ad and at a Colorado event this week, President Obama made a targeted appeal to women, arguing that Republicans would take women's health "back to the 1950s."
The Colorado event featured Georgetown University Law Center student Sandra Fluke, who earlier this year became a national figure after she was called a "slut" by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh for her backing of the health care law's contraception mandate.
Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has countered with an ad accusing the Obama administration of waging a "war on religion." National Republicans also have tapped several prominent Republican women to speak at the Aug. 27-30 convention, including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
The approach taken by the YG Network's "Woman Up!" initiative appears to mirror that taken by Romney on the campaign trail - a focus on how Obama's economic policies have affected women rather than on hot-button social issues such as contraception and Planned Parenthood funding.
Asked about the Obama campaign's revival of the "war on women" theme, Carter decried the Democratic attacks as "a fake, media-driven war on women" to which Republicans should respond with a substantive message of their own on issues ranging from health care to workplace laws.
"I don't think anyone has a war on women anywhere, in this country at least," she said. "But nonetheless, that message coming from the left must be countered. And it seems to me one of the best ways for conservatives to counter it is ... to provide a positive agenda and positive policies that will in turn help women."
Whether that message will resonate with voters remains an open question. Public polling suggests that the Obama campaign's messaging this year when it comes to the women's vote has paid political dividends.
In April, when the debate over the contraception mandate and other issues related to women was at its peak, Obama held a 19-percentage-point advantage over Romney among women.
That gap has narrowed to 8 percentage points in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News survey, released last month.
More broadly, Democrats have won the women's vote in every presidential election since 1992 and this year look on track to do the same. The question, then, will likely be by how wide a margin Obama wins women.
Might a female vice-presidential nominee help Romney to narrow the gap? Carter said that the decision is ultimately up to the presumptive GOP nominee.
She added: "No matter who the vice-presidential candidate is, I think we all agree that they should talk to women in a way that resonates."
An earlier version of this story inaccurately described the relationship of YG Network to the Young Guns super PAC. The story has been corrected.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1348 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 10, 2012 Friday 1:11 PM EST
Obama plays defense with welfare ad;
New ad calls out Romney as liar.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 338 words
President Obama is using a new TV ad to push back on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's claims that the administration is planning to "gut welfare."
"Blatant" quotes the New York Times, The Washington Post and former President Bill Clinton in knocking down the attack, which is based on a new Health and Human Services policy offering some states more flexibility in how (but not whether) they move people from welfare to work.
"Seen this? Mitt Romney claiming the President would end welfare's work requirements?" the narrator asks. "The New York Times calls it 'blatantly false.' The Washington Post says, 'the Obama administration is not removing the bill's work requirements at all.' In fact, Obama's getting states to move 20 percent more people from welfare to work. And President Clinton's reaction to the Romney ad? It's just 'not true.'"
The ad's reference is to Ezra Klein's left-leaning blog, but our Factchecker, Glenn Kessler, also gave Romney's ad four Pinnochios, its designation for the most misleading ads and political statements.
When Obama attacked Romney as an outsourcer, the Republican ran a similar ad citing fact checkers- adding a 2008 clip of Hillary Clinton telling Obama, her rival at the time, "Shame on you."
As The Fix wrote earlier this week, spurious attacks are often effective; most voters don't pay attention to the back-and-forth among surrogates and fact checkers that follows. But recent ads - including Romney's welfare reform spot - have gotten an unusual amount of pushback. The media was quick to cold water on the claim. Pressed in a CNN interview, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich admitted that there was "no proof" that Romney would gut welfare.
Romney's campaign stands by the original ad. "The facts are clear: President Obama's executive action dismantles welfare-to-work and undermines the very premise of bipartisan welfare reform," spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.
"Blatant" is airing in Colorado, Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1349 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 10, 2012 Friday
Regional Edition
Welfare politics
BYLINE: Editorial Board
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A14
LENGTH: 619 words
THE 1996 WELFARE reform law wrought dramatic change. It reduced the rolls from 4.6 million families to 1.7 million by 2009. Child poverty rates fell, and single-mother employment rates went up.
Mitt Romney and his campaign claim the Obama administration has gutted this landmark law. Says a 30-second ad paid for by the Republican National Committee: "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check. Welfare-to-work goes back to being plain old welfare."
This is false. The disputed July 12 memorandum from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offers to waive certain provisions in the current law for states that want to try new methods of meeting the work requirement. Even if those waivers did "gut" the work requirement, the main pillars of reform - a fixed federal block grant to the states of $16.5 billion per year, a five-year lifetime limit on federally funded benefits and aggressive caseload reduction goals - would still stand. They would prevent a return to the bad old days of unconditional, lifelong welfare dependency. Of course, given the states' budget woes, it's a mystery why any governor would seek to do that in the first place.
Mr. Romney's sloppy, hyperbolic attack is doubly unfortunate given that welfare was historically a racially fraught issue that reform defused. He and other critics are on firmer ground, however, when they question HHS's authority to change welfare policy, sweepingly or modestly, through a mere executive-branch memorandum.
There's a history here. The 1996 reform effectively ended debate on whether to require work; but arguments over exactly what activity counts as work, and how to measure or monitor it, raged on. Competing experts dispute whether it's more effective to move beneficiaries immediately into a job - the "work first" approach - or to allow more time for education, training or substance-abuse treatment - "human capital development."
When Congress reauthorized welfare reform in 2005, it took into account data supporting "work first" - as well as a Government Accountability Office report showing that some beneficiaries were getting work credit for dubious activities such as journaling. As a result, the measure, which President George W. Bush signed, included more specific work definitions, coupled with stricter reporting requirements for the states. Additionally, it told states that they would be held accountable for keeping caseloads below the 2005 level, not the 1996 level, as the previous law did.
States chafed at the new norms, arguing that the administrative burdens made it hard to meet the ambitious new caseload reduction norms. There is some evidence that they're right. But Congress has failed to agree on a new version of the law, so the 2005 version has been repeatedly extended.
Broadly speaking, the HHS memo embodies a policy approach that critics of the 2005 changes advocated before Congress during the most recent reauthorization attempts, but which Congress, for better or worse, did not adopt. It emphasizes experiments with "human capital"-like approaches - reflecting the new administrative reality in the states and recent evidence from pilot projects in Portland, Ore.
It might work; or, as the more responsible critics fear, waivers might dilute the strong pro-work incentives under existing law. We can't really know until a waiver is granted and a project runs its course. Either way, HHS's legal justification - that the secretary's authority to waive state reports on how to meet the work requirement also permits her to let states redefine the work requirement - strikes us as hard to square with Congress's intent.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1350 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 10, 2012 Friday
Suburban Edition
BYLINE: - Rachel Weiner
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 245 words
Romney ad focuses on religion
Mitt Romney makes an appeal to the Catholic vote with his latest ad, moving away from the economy to talk about health care and contraception.
President Obama has touted newly expanded contraception coverage in ads aimed at women. Now Romney is using that benefit to say the president declared a "war on religion."
The presumptive Republican nominee's ad features both former Polish president Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II - a clear play for the Catholic (and Polish) vote.
"Who shares your values?" the narrator asks. "President Obama used his health-care plan to declare war on religion, forcing religious institutions to go against their faith."
The reference is to a Health and Human Services regulation that requires insurers to cover contraception without out-of-pocket costs. Churches, synagogues and mosques are exempt. In a compromise designed to quell criticism, church-affiliated employers (such as universities) do not have to directly provide contraception coverage. Instead women will get the coverage directly from insurance companies, at no extra cost. That compromise did not satisfy Catholic critics.
The narrator concludes, "When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?"
Christen Varley, executive director of the social conservative advocacy group Conscience Cause, said the ad sends a message that "religious freedom and freedom of conscience are an issue in the November elections."
- Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1351 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 10, 2012 Friday
Suburban Edition
What's so wrong about Romneycare?
BYLINE: Melinda Henneberger
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 738 words
At first, I wondered what Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saulhad done that was so unredeemable.
From the freak-out on the right, you'd think she'd said that the Earth was warming, or that we can't raze the deficit through cuts alone.
Instead, Saul earned her pay by briskly smacking down a truly scurrilous attack on her boss - an ad so bad it was guaranteed to turn voters off. Before the ad even aired, other than in news reports, she put to rest any suggestion that Romney might bear some responsibility for the cancer death of a woman whose steelworker husband had lost his job and health insurance after Romney's Bain Capital shuttered his plant.
"If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health-care plan," Saul told Fox News Channel, "they would have had health care."
Now, that answer did have the benefit of being true. But for conservatives, it brought back irksome memories of Romney's middle-of-the-road governorship, his signature achievement in particular. Romneycare wasn't a secret, of course, but Saul seemed to think it was something to brag about.
(An ObamaWorld equivalent? This would be like a White House spokesman answering a question about something that never happened - say, his birth in Kenya - by saying, "Hey, that reminds me of a funny story about Jeremiah Wright . . .")
Naturally, Ann "if Romney is the nominee, we'll lose" Coulter was the first to call for Saul's head, but she wasn't riding solo in the posse. My favorite expression of outrage was John Podhoretz's humorous tweet Thursday that Saul had just informed his kids he ate out non-kosher.
In case you were worried for her job, Saul is not going to wind up like that steelworker: "Andrea goes out each day to defend against President Obama's false attacks and consistently puts points on the board when she posts up against his campaign,'' Romney communication director Gail Gitcho said in an e-mail. "She has the confidence of the Governor and the entire organization."
Romney does have a reputation for personal loyalty. And you can't launch "Women for Mitt" one day and fire a top female aide the next, especially after making a similar remarkyourself.
After Romney was cheered at an Iowa event on Wednesday, for vowing to squelch the Affordable Care Act ASAP, he added, "That doesn't mean that health care is perfect. We've got to do reforms in health care and I have some experience doing that, as you know. And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care."
No, this probably wasn't a wily pitch to independent voters, because Romney is still on surprisingly shaky ground with his base. A Republican strategist I spoke to Thursday said both Saul's remarks and Romney's had astonished one and all because they seemed so out of touch.
"He spent the entire primary trying to prove he'd moved away from [Romneycare], and now they're embracing it?"
On the bright side for Romney, it's August, and unless he keeps plugging what moderates like best about him, this unfortunate moment of truth will be forgotten long before November. It won't change a single vote, or even keep any Republicans home, but it does guarantee that an issue the president formerly didn't seem to want to talk about much more than Romney did will be front and center during the presidential debates. It's a reminder of how tenuous Romney's place in conservative hearts is.
But it's also another signal that pro-Obama super PACs aren't always super suave - or in this case, even minimally fair. The Priorities USA ad neglected to mention that Romney had left Bain by the time steelworker Joe Soptic's employer in Kansas City, Mo., declared bankruptcy. Or that Soptic's wife, Ranae, died five years after the plant closed.
Even the wildly out-of-context "You didn't build this" ads against Obama didn't accuse him of killing anyone. That is Vince Foster territory, and puts the oeuvre of the group run by former Obama aide Bill Burton in the tiny pantheon of ads so bad they backfired.
This one has earned a spot right between Jon Corzine's classy '09 attack on Chris Christie's weight and Jerry Kilgore's famous 2005 hit on Tim Kaine, a commercial in which one of the nicest guys in politics morphs into Hitler.
It's good to know there are some limits, even for super PACs.
hennebergerm@washpost.com
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political writer and anchors the paper's She the People blog. Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1352 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 10, 2012 Friday
Met 2 Edition
Guantanamo's must-see TV? It's chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool.
BYLINE: Al Kamen
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 862 words
One might assume that only Will Smith-o-philes and serious devotees of '90s pop culture would still seek out "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air," the sitcom starring Smith that ran from 1990 to 1996.
But the series has an unlikely fan base: Gitmo prisoners.
The Miami Herald reports that early episodes of the show have replaced the Harry Potter book series as the most-requested items by detainees at the Guantanamo Bay library.
To keep up with demand, the librarian just ordered all six seasons of the show, the Herald reports, while the Harry Potter books are sooo 2011. "They're over that," the librarian says of the boy-wizarding series. Oddly, too, Bill Cosby enjoyed a brief surge in popularity among the Gitmo population, the librarian noted.
Why, we wondered, might the TV show - which featured Smith as a tough kid from the streets of Philadelphia who comes to live with upper-crust relatives in a tony California neighborhood - strike a chord with Gitmo denizens?
"Any diversion is welcome," says Washington human-rights attorney David Remes, who represents 17 prisoners there.
Once he left a copy of the dystopian novel "1984" for an English-speaking client, who later told him that the book "perfectly captured the psychological reality of living at Guantanamo." Remes thinks the prisoners would prefer that kind of serious fare to more frivolous offerings such as Harry Potter and the "Fresh Prince" gang.
"They do not have a rich cultural life there," he says.
Guantanamo's library, housed in an air-conditioned trailer, includes a "multilingual collection of books that mostly circulate in Arabic, Pashto, English and French," the Herald reports. Other hot titles: President Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" and George W. Bush's "Decision Points."
Recycle that rhetoric
Next month, it will be 25 years since Vice President Biden's plagiarism of speeches by former British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock and by former Democratic leaders derailed his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Of course, it was later revealed that speechwriters, not the speakers, were the authors of some of the more memorable passages that Biden lifted.
We were reminded the other day of that famous incident after a Loop Fan alerted us to a post by Jeffrey Lewis on the liberal Arms Control Wonk blog.
The post concerned a paragraph from a speech a couple of years ago by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.):
"A central tenet of the Obama Administration's security policy is that, if the U.S. 'leads by example' we can 'reassert our moral leadership' and influence other nations to do things. It is the way the President intends to advance his goal of working toward a world free of nuclear weapons and to deal with the stated twin top priorities of the Administration: nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism."
That passage, Lewis noted, is virtually identical to one in a statement submitted for the record last week by Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), who chairs a House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces.
Lewis speculated, correctly, as we found out, that a committee aide who had formerly worked for Kyl included it in Turner's statement for the Armed Services Committee.
The two lawmakers share pretty much the same views, so the aide might have liked Kyl's language - maybe even wrote it? - and could have figured it would read just as well for Turner. The miscue was "inadvertent," we were told.
Well, could you perhaps argue that there's no plagiarism, since you can't plagiarize yourself? And since it's rare that any politician in this town actually writes his or her own stuff these days, we're guessing this sort of "rhetorical pilfering," as our late colleague Mary McGrory called it, happens a lot.
But the committee wasn't amused. This was a "regrettable error," committee spokesman Claude Chafin said in a statement this week. Turner "had no way of knowing that unattributed comments were included" in that statement.
"We regret the error and will make every effort to ensure it does not happen again," Chafin said, adding that the committee will correct the record to attribute that passage to Kyl.
Might not be a good thing to make too much of a fuss about it.
After all, after Biden's candidacy imploded, the Democrats ended up nominating Michael Dukakis.
Quote of the week
This week's winner is GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who said, wistfully, that things just aren't like they used to be.
"You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad," Romney said on Bill Bennett's radio program, "Morning in America." "They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them."
This from someone who just received a maximum Four Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler for an ad about Obama's welfare policies that even Newt Gingrichsaid had no proof to support it.
(For the record: we've never, ever gotten more than one Pinocchio.)
kamena@washpost.com
With Emily Heil
The blog: washingtonpost.com/intheloop. Twitter: @InTheLoopWP.
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1353 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
A Candidate Whose Ads Are Never Off the Air
BYLINE: By ADAM NAGOURNEY
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 1043 words
HONOLULU -- Channel 110 is a choice spot on Hawaii's digital cable dial, coming right after Fox News and right before CNN Headline News. These days, it is the home of LL12, a station that will soon devote every minute of every day to one topic: Linda Lingle, a Republican running for the United States Senate.Just in case there are not enough political advertisements on existing television stations here -- and most people say there most certainly are, given the Senate campaign, two Congressional races, and a lively race for Honolulu mayor -- Ms. Lingle has created her own cable station. It provides viewers with a feast of Lingle speeches, Lingle advertisements and Lingle endorsements, as well as video issue papers, televised forums and testimonials delivered in 10 of the languages spoken on these islands.
Think Linglevision. It began modestly in June and is about to roll out as a full-blown operation, pumping all-Lingle-all-the-time into 245,000 living rooms after Saturday, when her Democratic opponent will be chosen in a primary. Ms. Lingle says that if she wins the general election, she intends to hold on to the station as a way to communicate with constituents.
''Most people never come to hear a speech through the entire campaign,'' Ms. Lingle said, seated in a hotel lobby in Waikiki before speaking at a fund-raiser. ''I thought this would be more convenient for citizens, for voters. Rather than them having to come to us, we would go to them.''
By every indication, LL12 (as in Linda Lingle 2012) is a first-of-its-kind venture in campaign advertising in this country, reflecting the continued push by candidates to break through the rising clatter of political advertising. It is also taking advantage of the fact that one cable company, Oceanic Time Warner Cable, covers about 95 percent of the market here, making the project a little easier to pull off.
But the effort is also evidence of the extent to which Republicans are prepared to pour money into even what Ms. Lingle described as an uphill fight to be elected to the Senate. The Democratic primary is between Representative Mazie K. Hirono and Ed Case, a former member of Congress. The Hawaii Poll, taken for the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now in July, showed that both Democrats enjoyed double-digit leads over Ms. Lingle among likely voters.
''She has a ton of money, and I'm not sure she knows what to do with it,'' Mr. Case said. ''I think she calculates she has to spend some of it now. There's no reason to keep it in reserve.''
It is not easy to judge the effectiveness of LL12, at least at this early stage. Campaign officials said it drew 70,000 viewers in July, with each watching for an average of three and a half minutes. That is the equivalent of seven 30-second commercials, said Lenny Klompus, a deputy campaign manager.
Were those viewers channel surfers who happened to land on LL12? Committed Republicans already in Ms. Lingle's camp? Or just, as Stephen Colbert suggested in a segment making fun of LL12, insomniacs and people in traction? ''Well, that's a good question,'' Ms. Lingle said.
But it certainly has people talking.
''It's Linda Lingle 24-7,'' Ms. Hirono said. ''I think I saw a couple of seconds of it when I was trying to change the channels. It's not a station I would watch.''
''While this is funny, what's not funny is the amount of money the Republican Party is going to spend to try to win this seat so they can get closer to the four seats they need to control the U.S. Senate,'' she said.
It is hard to blame Ms. Lingle for trying something new. ''You have this perfect-storm election year for Hawaii,'' said John Hart, the chairman of the communications department at Hawaii Pacific University. ''You have a mayoral race that is highly contested. You have both House seats open. You have a Senate seat open when you only have an open Senate seat in Hawaii once in a generation. And you have a Hawaiian-born president at the top of the ballot.''
''They are rolling the dice,'' he said.
If Ms. Lingle's race is tough, her candidacy is far from implausible. She is a former two-term governor, has a history of winning elections in this state and is an effective campaigner. Mr. Case and Ms. Hirono have spent much of the summer focusing on each other. And Ms. Lingle defeated Ms. Hirono in a race for governor in 2002.
The race is attractive to the Republican Party and to outside groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which tends to support Republican candidates, because a Lingle victory would embarrass Mr. Obama in his own backyard and make it that much easier for Republicans to capture the Senate. Ms. Lingle has already raised $4.4 million for her race, compared with Ms. Hirono's $3.4 million and Mr. Case's $781,000.
Hawaii is resolutely Democratic, and Mr. Obama was born here. Ms. Lingle faces the burden of running in a year when her party -- and its presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney -- has turned increasingly conservative and critical of Mr. Obama.
''He's certainly to the right of my philosophy,'' Ms. Lingle said of Mr. Romney. ''I think the language I use is a much more balanced language than the national Republicans might use.
''It certainly is hard to be a Republican in Hawaii and run for office,'' she said.
Hence Linglevision, which could prove particularly well suited to a place like Hawaii. Most of the population is concentrated in the Honolulu area, and the residents of the outlying islands are unlikely to get many opportunities to see Ms. Lingle or any of her opponents.
And truth be told, it is not particularly expensive. Robert Lee, Ms. Lingle's campaign manager, said the campaign was spending $2,500 a week for the channel.
''They had a blank, and we took it,'' he said. ''And the blank station happened to be between Fox News and CNN Headline News.''
Neal Milner, a retired political science professor with the University of Hawaii, said he was skeptical that LL12 would win new supporters for Ms. Lingle.
''Most people who are likely to watch it are people who have already decided to vote for her,'' he said.
''But she's got the money,'' he said. ''It doesn't cost all that much. And like a lot of things in a campaign, if you're not sure how effective it is, you just go ahead and do it.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/us/politics/linda-lingle-turns-hawaii-tv-channel-into-24-hour-campaign-ad.html
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Linda Lingle last week. Her campaign spends $2,500 a week for a channel nestled between Fox News and CNN Headline News. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MONICA ALMEIDA/THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1354 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
Mr. Romney Hits Bottom on Welfare
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; EDITORIAL; Pg. 22
LENGTH: 499 words
Mitt Romney's campaign has hit new depths of truth-twisting with its accusation that President Obama plans to ''gut welfare reform'' by ending federal work requirements. The claim is blatantly false, but it says a great deal about Mr. Romney's increasingly desperate desire to define the president as something he is not.For years, both Republican and Democratic governors have sought waivers from the 1996 work requirements in the welfare program, sometimes to tailor programs to their states' needs, or to experiment with demonstration programs. Last year, an aide to Brian Sandoval, the Republican governor of Nevada, asked to discuss flexibility in imposing those requirements. Perhaps, the state asked, those families hardest to employ could be exempted from the work requirements for six months while officials worked with them to stabilize their households.
Utah, also led by a Republican governor, asked for relief from some federal reporting requirements, and urged that refugee families be treated differently when seeking welfare benefits because of cultural barriers.
Reacting to these kinds of requests, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo last month granting states some flexibility. If states can find better ways to get welfare recipients into jobs, they can extend training periods or grant certain kinds of exceptions. The department ''is only interested in approving waivers if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs,'' according to the memo. Kathleen Sebelius, the health secretary, said all waivers would have to move 20 percent more people from welfare to work.
This was hardly an earthshaking change. In fact, it was exactly the kind of flexibility sought in 2005 by 29 Republican governors, including Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. But conservative ideologues immediately waved the memo around to prove that Mr. Obama wanted to return to the bad old days of welfare, and inevitably Mr. Romney's campaign followed suit.
''Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job,'' says the latest Romney ad. ''They just send you your welfare check, and 'welfare to work' goes back to being plain old welfare.'' Mr. Romney himself doubled down on Wednesday, saying flatly in Des Moines that Mr. Obama has ''removed the requirement of work from welfare.''
This could not be more wrong, but this is what happens when a flailing campaign searches for a wedge issue to gain popularity among blue-collar voters. Mr. Romney's empty promises to magically turn around the economy are losing effectiveness, so why not vilify welfare recipients and portray the president as coddling them?
That approach was favored by an earlier generation of Republican operatives, and it helped divide the country into warring political classes. Mr. Romney, no less cynical, seems bent on repeating the past.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/opinion/mr-romney-hits-bottom-on-welfare.html
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Editorial
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1355 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 9, 2012 Thursday
The Early Word: New Lines
BYLINE: ASHLEY SOUTHALL
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 545 words
HIGHLIGHT: Political new from today's Times, plus a look at what's happening in Washington.
Today's Times:
To attract young voters, Republicans are talking more about the economy and less about social issues. In some cases, Susan Sauly explains, the change reflects the fact that a new generation doesn't share the same positions on abortion and same-sex marriage that older Republicans endorse. In other cases, it's a pragmatic political decision by social conservatives.
With the Republican convention set to get under way this month, Mitt Romney's campaign is working out the tricky calculus of who should get what roles. Jeremy W. Peters writes that the "fastidiously controlled, leave-nothing-to-chance" campaign faces some hazardous choices as it tries to balance conservatives' demands with Republicans' desire to woo independent voters.
In the absence of an animated contest for the White House, some Congressional races are adding a to this year's elections. Jennifer Steinhauer writes about how this election has been colored by redistricting, a deluge of cash, and the continuing influence of the Tea Party, sprinkled with a few arrests and other high jinks.
Forget the 30-second campaign ad. Linda Lingle, a Republican Senate hopeful in Hawaii, has a 24-hour cable channel devoted to her campaign. The channel is "a first-of-its-kind venture in campaign advertising in this country, reflecting the continued push by candidates to break through the rising clatter of political advertising," but also demonstrating how Republicans are willing to pour cash into a campaign they hope will help them to gain control of the Senate, Adam Nagourney writes.
In an aggressive effort to shed light on the workings of the secretive outside spending groups that are having an outsize and virtually unfettered influence in the election, the attorney general of New York has asked the groups to turn over federal tax returns and other documents. Nicholas Confessore writes that with the Internal Revenue Service facing competing pressures from Democrats and Republicans over its oversight of politically active and tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is scrutinizing the groups as part of a broader inquiry into tax-exempt organizations.
President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser dismissed accusations -- lodged by Republicans -- that the Obama administration has disclosed classified information for political gain as "specious and false" but defended speaking openly and with discretion about national security matters, Scott Shane reports. John O. Brennan, the adviser, also said the administration was working on a way to increase defenses against computer attacks after Congress failed to pass cybersecurity legislation.
Happening in Washington:
Economic data expected today include weekly jobless claims and international trade data for June at 8:30 a.m., followed by weekly mortgage rates and wholesale trade inventories for June at 10.
At noon, representatives of a coalition of voting rights advocates will hold a news conference to announce the release of the Elections Protection smartphone app, which will allow users to check their voter registration and locate polling places.
The Early Word: Fixed Battle Lines
The Early Word: Bull's-Eye
The Weekend Word: Back to School
The Early Word: Recess
The Early Word: Taxing
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1356 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Opinion Report: Humane Confinement
BYLINE: ANDREW ROSENTHAL
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 93 words
HIGHLIGHT: A summary of what's on today's editorial page.
Mitt Romney's campaign hit a new low with its accusation that President Obama plans to "gut welfare reform."
Mars never gets old.
The New York City Police Department is trumpeting a decrease of about one-third in the number of citizens detained under its stop-and-frisk program.
While the Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons," officials "must provide humane conditions of confinement."
Gutting Welfare
Opinion Report: Solitary Confinement
Opinion Report: The Confrontation Clause
Opinion Report: 'Reparative Therapy'
Opinion Report: The JP Morgan Debacle
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1357 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 9, 2012 Thursday
The 2012 Cycle: Attack, Feign Outrage, Repeat
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 865 words
HIGHLIGHT: Negative, out-of-context attacks have come to define this presidential campaign - as has the offense that is inevitably taken by the other side.
The Democratic outrage machine is in full lather.
On Wednesday, the talking heads and campaign operatives spewed angry e-mails and Twitter messages about Mitt Romney's latest television ad, which accuses President Obama of wanting to "gut" the work part of welfare to work.
"There is not an independent person that has looked at that ad, not one person that's looked at that and said it's remotely and substantially true," Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to the president's campaign, said on MSNBC on Wednesday morning.
Last month, the outrage was directed at another Romney ad that took a few lines from Mr. Obama about roads and bridges and twisted them into disrespect for small business. The president called it "out of context" and "flat wrong." Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic spokesman, said it was "trumped up, out of context" and "fact-checked to death."
But hang on a minute. Even as they mount their high horses to complain, Democrats are eagerly delivering their own attacks seizing on a snippet or two of Mr. Romney's comments, ignoring whatever he might actually have meant in favor of a quick-and-dirty hit.
On Wednesday, a Democratic "super PAC" began running an ad that essentially accused Mr. Romney of causing the death of a woman whose husband lost his job at a company owned by Mr. Romney's Bain Capital.
Cue the umbrage.
"It's sad and disappointing that President Obama's allies would stoop to such levels in an attempt to impugn Mitt Romney's character," said Amanda Henneberg, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney.
Negative, out-of-context attacks have come to define the 2012 presidential campaign - as has the offense that is inevitably taken. It is the height of political chutzpah, where both sides slide back and forth between perpetrator and victim with no sense of irony along the way.
"This over-the-top crying that both campaigns are doing after they landed these blows - I think the American people are sick of it," said John Weaver, a political strategist who advised Senator John McCain of Arizona for years.
The candidates and their allies should stop "this fake personal injury that they are both going through," Mr. Weaver said. "There's no whining in this business."
And yet, in this political season, the whining has been almost as loud as the barrage of negative attacks that has preceded it.
¶ Democrats howled last year when Mr. Romney's campaign produced an ad showing Mr. Obama saying: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." It turns out, the clip was from 2008, and Mr. Obama was quoting an aide to Mr. McCain.
¶ It was Mr. Romney's turn to cry foul a few months later when Democrats gleefully jumped on Mr. Romney's saying "I like to fire people" and "I'm not concerned about the very poor." They left out the context, he complained, though Democrats paid him no heed.
¶ But turnabout is fair play, it seems. So when Mr. Obama said that the "private sector is doing fine," the same Republicans who insisted on context were suddenly happy to quote the president without any. Complaints came streaming in from the White House and its allies.
¶ And yet, even as the Democrats complained about the private-sector comments, they seized on comments Mr. Romney made the same day about teachers and firefighters. Mr. Romney doesn't care about them, they said, ignoring whatever context there might have been to his remarks.
¶ However much they talked about the importance of context, Mr. Romney's campaign left most of it out in a barrage of ads showing the president saying: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He was talking about roads and bridges, a point that was ignored.
Mike McCurry, a former press secretary for President Bill Clinton, said neither side seems able to control the pace or intensity of the back-and-forth.
"They haven't found the volume knob," Mr. McCurry said.
"There used to be at least a sliding scale of what level of vitriol you would use in a campaign," he added. "You went to the highest level for the highest offense. What happens now is everyone just goes to the loudest and strongest response they can make. It just escalates the temperature of the campaign."
Negative attacks are not new. But in the age of Twitter and Facebook, neither side seems hampered by a concern that it might do something that crosses a line that the other side wouldn't.
On Wednesday, Democrats eagerly spread around a Huffington Post article about some of Bain Capital's initial outside financing coming from a group of Central American oligarchs. The article alleges that some of the investors may have also been financing death squads in El Salvador. The subject line of the e-mail from Mr. Woodhouse read simply: "Death Squads."
Over the weekend, Republicans seized on a lawsuit in Ohio by Mr. Obama's campaign that seeks to allow early voting for all residents, not just military families and those living overseas. In Mr. Romney's telling, though, the lawsuit was an attack on military families.
Each sides has expressed its disdain that the other would stoop so low.
"I remember feigning outrage myself on some days," said Mr. McCurry. "But not at this level. They just seem to be pounding each other."
LOAD-DATE: August 10, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1358 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Frank Bruni)
August 9, 2012 Thursday
The Veep Cometh!
BYLINE: FRANK BRUNI
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 1211 words
HIGHLIGHT: The long buildup to the selection of a running mate serves a great many ancillary agendas and interests.
This week we went from wading through Republican veep speculation to swimming in it. Mitt, I beg of you: announce your choice today or tomorrow, before we drown.
I pledged long ago not to make predictions, noting what I'd like to note again here. Sarah Palin was on just about none of the pundits' lips or lists until she was official and ineluctable, which she remains. Dick Cheney was running the selection process for George W. Bush and then-head fake!-he was the selection. By that logic and precedent, Beth Myers, a longtime Romney aide who was his chief of staff when he was the Massachusetts governor, will be Romney's running mate. You heard it here first!
But there are a few non-predictive observations worth making before we leave this phase of the campaign and enter the next, in which the running mate, unveiled, is inspected, dissected, deified, demonized and debated ad nauseam, so that you'll be utterly exhausted with Romney's running mate a mere 48 hours after they've mated.
The Romney campaign and its allies have smartly tried to use the veep hunt and selection process as a means of minor distraction when they needed one. It hasn't always worked as well as I'm betting they wanted it to, but the effort was there.
Remember the flurry of Condoleezza Rice speculation? That she had leapt to the top of a short list of possibilities? Well, no one with any insight thinks she's at that summit now and not a lot of people really believed she was there then, but that attention-getting nugget leaked out as Romney was going through one of his worst examination-of-Bain-days moments. It had the feel of pure diversion.
Subsequently, during another rocky campaign patch, the Romney campaign dropped-or at least reporters covering the campaign kept detecting-clues and signals and such about he might announce his running mate, and this too yielded a crop of stories that diluted, ever so slightly, the ones the campaign was tiring of seeing. In the revved-up, frantic news media environment of the moment, the veep hunt isn't just a talent search. It's a narrative and mechanism by which a campaign can try to accomplish a whole lot more than just the selection of the right addition to the ticket.
Speaking of that revved-up news media environment, there was a manifest determination by reporters to use the veep hunt as the springboard for even more micro-stories and mini-commentaries than in the past. Think of the veep hunt as a sort of journalistic force multiplier.
Last night Politico moved a lengthy and spirited story on running mates whom Democrats would swoon to see on the ticket but most of whom Newt Gingrich was mentioned and quoted; an unnamed Democratic operative offered thoughts on Donald Trump; a recent quip by Ed Rendell about Michele Bachmann was recycled.
On The Times's web site at the beginning of this week, Michael Shear did an extensive analysis of the advantages and benefits of a Romney announcement "early this week" versus "late this week" versus "before the convention" versus "at the convention."
One paragraph in particular caught my eye:
Such an early choice would instantly double the amount of physical terrain that Mr. Romney's camp could cover for the rest of the month. The vice-presidential choice could spend weeks traveling through swing states, leaving Mr. Romney more time to raise money.
If there's one thing this campaign doesn't seem to want for, it's money, and if I've been reading news reports correctly, Romney's doing a pretty fleet and thorough job of raising it even running mate. As a story in The Times this week by Shear and Nicholas Confessore made clear, Romney and the Republican Party raised just over $100 million in July, outpacing Barack Obama and his Democratic allies by $25 million.
"Mr. Obama's advisers have all but conceded the money race to Mr. Romney," Shear and Confessore wrote, meaning that the president is resigned to lag, not that he's given up going after dough. Hardly. As Jodi Kantor wrote recently in The Times, he turned his 51st birthday into a fundraising opportunity. The Obama campaign also commenced an events registry by which people getting married or celebrating birthdays could ask revelers to make a donation to the president's reelection effort in place of a gift.
The veep hunt isn't just an opportunity for the hunters back at campaign headquarters to manage and even manipulate the media. It's an opportunity for the supposedly hunted as well. Cheney candidly conceded this in his recent interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News, but the admission was eclipsed somewhat by the headlines-generating part of the interview in which he said it was a mistake for John McCain to pick Palin in 2008.
Cheney was speaking from the perspective of having supervised two veep hunts over the years, and he was talking about the lengthy list of possibilities that reporters chew over versus a much smaller, internal list of politicians who actually stand a real chance of getting the nod. He told Karl:
I sort of think of it as-there are-there are two lists, is the way I always thought about it. And-and I don't know whether the Romney people are-are operating this way or not. I assume they're being very careful and cautious. I certainly would expect that. But there's-there's the big list that's got a lot of folks on it.
I actually, when I was doing it for-well, I did it for Ford in '76. But then again for George W. Bush in 2000. I had a couple of calls from politicians who'd say, "You know, it'd really help me in my race back home, Dick, if I was on the list." Done. You're on the list. Then somebody could go leak the fact that they were on the list. But that was the big list. It was easy to get on the big list. The tough part is the-the small list, the one that's really under active consideration.
And there's yet another function, other than the selection of a running mate, that the veep hunt serves. It allows party stalwarts, as they publicly advocate for one choice or another, to engage in a discussion about where the party does or should stand, what its priorities must be, the direction in which it needs to head, and the vulnerabilities it needs to address.
They've been doing precisely that over recent months. Republicans cognizant of, and concerned about, the party's disadvantage among Latino voters have talked up Marco Rubio's veep appeal as a way of focusing fellow Republicans on that challenge. Jeb Bush has been particularly loquacious in this regard.
Meantime, Republicans for whom entitlement reform is a top priority have pushed hard for Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate. To them, his selection would be the most emphatic statement possible of the party's commitment to cutting back Federal spending on Medicare and such, and it would be the triumph of boldness over caution. Ryan-as-running-mate has, over the last week in particular, become a sort of Republican Rorschach. You can find the argument for him for Rubio in this widely noted Weekly Standard appeal that urged Mitt to "Go for the Gold."
And the running mate will be?
Announced soon enough. That's as far out on a limb as I'm willing to go.
Latinos on the Rise
The Perks of a Certain Address
Gloom and Broom
More Thoughts on 'Game Change'
The Republicans' 'If Only' Candidates
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1359 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Evil Bain and the Evil Empire
BYLINE: ANDREW ROSENTHAL
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 414 words
HIGHLIGHT: The latest political ads are truly preposterous.
Political ads twist the truth, create false impressions, prey on voters' most primal fears or just lie outright. We all know this; but that doesn't make the most recent exchange in the presidential campaign any less reprehensible.
A Super PAC working in support of President Obama released an ad Tuesday morning that suggests - well, more like hits you over the head and rubs your face in the idea - that Mitt Romney was responsible for a woman dying of cancer. A guy named Joe Soptic worked at a company that collapsed after a takeover by Mr. Romney's Bain Capital. He lost his health insurance. His wife got cancer. She had no insurance. She died. Mr. Romney is a bad, bad man who should not be president.
Media analysts have poked holes in the ad's narrative, including the question of whether Mr. Romney had "operational control" over Bain at the time of the plant's closing, the timing of the woman's death, and her insurance history. None of that really matters. Mitt Romney did not kill that woman.
His campaign responded, rather maladroitly, by suggesting that Mr. Soptic would have had insurance if he'd lived in Massachusetts, where Mr. Romney instituted just the kind of insurance reform that he says will kill the economy.
Then, it released its own totally preposterous ad-one that accuses Mr. Obama of declaring a "war on religion" and "forcing religious institutions to go against their faith." That's a reference to the new health care rule, which requires employers to provide women workers with coverage for birth control. That law includes an exemption for churches, and a special work-around for religiously affiliated institutions-but naturally the ad doesn't mention these details.
In the next scene, we find Mr. Romney in Poland, talking in that odd sing-song that he uses to simulate gravitas. In 1979, he said, Pope John Paul II "spoke words that would bring down an empire: Be not afraid."
The ad asks "when religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?"
Mr. Romney, right? Because Mr. Romney is the Pope, or Lech Walesa, or Solidarity, or basically all fighters for freedom from tyranny. And Mr. Obama is the evil empire.
So there we have it, a clear contrast that should help undecided voters make up their minds: A man personally responsible for a woman's death, or a man who personifies the Soviet Union.
Health Care Confusion
Job Creation vs. Profit Creation
Too Conservative, or Just Extremely Conservative?
Gutting Welfare
If It Works in Israel...
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1360 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 9, 2012 Thursday
The Spanish Campaign
BYLINE: LAWRENCE DOWNES
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 321 words
HIGHLIGHT: A new Spanish-language ad calls the president the "Deporter-in-Chief."
Alongside the presidential campaign we all know-centered at the moment on a debate between "Romney Hood" and "Obamaloney"-the candidates are waging a shadow war in Spanish, more closely focused on the issues politicians assume are particularly important to Latino voters. The newest foray is a dishonest Spanish-language ad running in Nevada, which attacks President Obama for breaking a campaign promise to pass immigration reform, and for deporting too many illegal immigrants.
The ad, paid for by American Principles in Action, a Washington-based conservative PAC, calls the president el Deportador-en-Jefe, the Deporter-in-Chief. It also denounces Mr. Obama's recent decision to halt the deportations of some young unauthorized immigrants - because it doesn't go far enough.
"He offers undocumented youth a temporary solution that still cheats them of legal status," the ad says.
The claims are pretty much true. But wait - why are right-wingers saying this? Republicans like deportations. They want more of them - millions more. They don't want undocumented youth to get legal status, they want them to get
The ad does not mention that Mr. Obama actually supports a bill in Congress that would help those undocumented youths: the Dream Act. It doesn't say that this bill has been stymied in Congress for a decade - by Mr. Romney's party. Or that Mr. Romney has promised to veto it. Or that he favors policies designed to make life in the United States so miserable for unauthorized immigrants that all 11 million of them will "self-deport."
The ad also does not mention that Mr. Romney was the most extreme anti-immigrant, pro-deportation candidate in the Republican race this year, and he's about to be the nominee.
"No más mentiras, Señor Obama," the ad says: No more lies.
Romney's Immigration Speech
A Breakthrough on Immigration Policy
Opinion Report: Rove's 'Social Welfare' Group
Shhh, Don't Mention Immigration
The Arizona Show
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1361 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Obama Campaign Tries to Distance Itself From Widely Criticized 'Super PAC' Ad
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 594 words
HIGHLIGHT: President Obama's top advisers have been working to separate their candidate from an ad that lays the blame for the death of a cancer victim at Mitt Romney's feet.
President Obama's top advisers have spent the last 36 hours trying to put distance between their candidate and a "super PAC" ad that lays the blame for the death of a cancer victim at Mitt Romney's feet.
But in doing so, Mr. Obama's staff has been accused of lying by Republicans.
The ad, by Priorities USA Action, features a man named Joe Soptic, who worked at a steel mill owned by Bain Capital, Mr. Romney's private equity firm. In the ad, Mr. Soptic tells the story of his wife's dying of cancer after the plant was shut down by Bain.
"That's when they found the cancer. By then, it was Stage Four. There was nothing they could do for her. She passed away in 22 days," Mr. Soptic says in the ad. "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone. Furthermore, I don't think Mitt Romney is concerned."
The ad has been widely criticized for going too far in suggesting that Mr. Romney is responsible for the death of Mr. Soptic's wife. Federal law does not allow presidential campaigns to coordinate with groups like Priorities USA Action.
Pressed about the ad by reporters, Stephanie Cutter, the deputy campaign manager for Mr. Obama, said she didn't "know the facts about when Mr. Soptic's wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance."
Jen Psaki, a top spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday that "we don't have any knowledge of the story of the family." She was apparently referring to knowledge among campaign staff members of Mr. Soptic's story involving his wife's illness.
But in May, Ms. Cutter led a conference call in which Mr. Soptic was given a platform to tell his story. During the call, Mr. Soptic described the difficulties his family faced after the plant closed, including his wife's cancer. (Ms. Psaki had not rejoined the Obama campaign at the time of the conference call.)
"When the cancer took her away, all I got was an enormous bill," Mr. Soptic said on the call. "It wouldn't have happened if I had my old job at the steel mill."
Mr. Soptic also appeared in an ad produced by Mr. Obama's campaign, though he did not tell the story of his wife's death in that ad.
Aides to Mr. Obama did not say they were unaware of Mr. Soptic's existence, a position which would have been impossible to maintain. But they said they did not know details about his wife's illness, her dealings with insurance and her death.
"No one is denying that he was in one of our campaign ads, he was on a conference call telling his story which many, many people in this country have gone through as there have been layoffs and they have had their benefits reduced," Ms. Psaki said on Thursday. "What is clear here again is that we are focusing so much on an ad that has not run yet that is done by an outside group."
Ms. Psaki and Ms. Cutter have both repeatedly stressed that the campaign did not produce the ad by the super PAC.
But that response has not been enough to satisfy Mr. Romney's supporters, who said Mr. Obama's advisers should be held to account. The Republican National Committee released a video on Thursday asking, "if they're lying about this, what else are they lying about?"
And Mr. Romney's campaign has been aggressive, too.
"President Obama and his campaign are willing to say and do anything to hide the president's disappointing record," said Ryan Williams, a spokesman for Mr. Romney's campaign. "The president and his campaign are intentionally misleading voters about their clear connection to this false and despicable attack because they do not want to talk about his failed economic policies."
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1362 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 9, 2012 Thursday
FINAL EDITION
Romney centers attack on '96 welfare law;
Claims Obama plan would end work requirement set up by Clinton and Gingrich
BYLINE: Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 5A
LENGTH: 662 words
A new line of attack by Republican Mitt Romney against President Obama has brought old antagonists out to battle.
Romney says an Obama administration offer to waive some federal welfare rules for state programs -- an effort, the administration says, to experiment with ways to put welfare recipients into jobs -- ends the requirement that recipients of government assistance must work. That dispute has turned the clock back to 1996, the year a welfare overhaul law was hammered out by President Clinton and then-speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Clinton, who signed the law requiring work as a condition of welfare payments, said Tuesday night that Romney's claim is "not true" and that his campaign ad is "misleading."
Romney's ad says: "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
On Wednesday in Des Moines, Romney reiterated the attack against Obama. "He removed the requirement of work from welfare. It is wrong to make any change that would make America more of a nation of government dependency. We must restore, and I will restore, work into welfare," he said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney called Romney's attack "categorically false and blatantly dishonest." The Obama administration says it does not want to waive work requirements but wants to allow flexibility for states to test programs that may get more people into jobs.
Carney said the waivers are only available to states that increase the number of people moving from welfare to work. The Politifact fact-checking site rated the ad "pants on fire."
Gingrich -- in a conference call Wednesday with reporters arranged by the Republican National Committee -- said that Republicans' "immediate assumption is that (Obama) is setting up a dramatic reduction in the work requirement." The 1996 work requirements were designed "not to be waivable" because Republicans "deeply distrusted liberals who, we were convinced, would go back to the pre-1996 model," Gingrich said.
The Romney campaign has taken up the controversy as part of its broader theme that Obama doesn't understand or value free enterprise -- seen in earlier ads claiming Obama's "you didn't build that" comment displayed a hostility to small business.
The welfare dispute led both Romney and Gingrich to speak favorably of Clinton, who will make the speech nominating Obama at the Democratic convention next month. Gingrich praised Clinton for being willing to negotiate with Congress, and called Obama "the anti-Clinton."
"I hope that every American when they watch Bill Clinton speak, will realize how much weaker and ineffective as president Obama is," Gingrich said.
On July 12, the Obama administration told states they could seek a waiver from federal requirements. Facing GOP opposition in Congress, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius clarified that the waivers would not be granted to states trying to reduce work requirements.
Welfare policy expert Olivia Golden of the Urban Institute says the waiver plan will allow states to avoid cumbersome documentation and spend more time on helping welfare recipients get jobs -- one of the goals of the 1996 legislation.
Golden, who was an assistant health secretary under Clinton, says the Obama administration "pinpointed a need ... to give states the opportunity to look for good ways to be effective in this economic climate, and the need to focus on results in a more intensive way, rather than the needs of the process."
Because of the way the law is written, a court may have to decide whether the waivers are allowable, says Peter Schuck, a Yale law professor.
Schuck says the 1996 welfare law increased employment and cut poverty among single mothers, and the work requirement "is an issue that resonates with lots and lots of middle-class and working-class Americans." If Romney "can depict it as being undermined by a zealous welfare-ist Obama, that may sway some votes," Schuck says.
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1363 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 9, 2012 Thursday 9:14 PM EST
New poll shows Obama leading Romney by 7;
Democratic bus will shadow Romney bus tour
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 538 words
President Obama leads Mitt Romney by 7 points in a new CNN/ORC poll, Heather Wilson attacks Martin Heinrich in a new ad, and four McCotter aides face charges in Michigan.
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your email inbox every day by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
John Hickenlooper: The most important governor in the country?
The vice presidential pick is overrated. Here's why.
Can Congress compromise? Watch a Fix Google Plus Hangout with Reps. Baird, Djou
The strange world of Mike Huckabee's endorsements explained
Like Angry Birds? You're a swing voter.
Romney on not releasing more tax returns: 'I'm not a business'
Romney ad: Obama waging 'war on religion'
When campaign ads backfire
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* A new CNN/ORC national poll shows that President Obama holds a 52 percent to 45 percent lead over Mitt Romney. Obama leads by 11 points among independents in the survey.
* Romney will have some Democratic company when he hits the road for his swing state bus tour on Friday. A Democratic National Committee bus will trail the presumptive GOP presidential nominee as he moves from state to state.
* Democrats will also offer Romney some company in Tampa, during the Republican National Convention. Obama is making a $181,000 ad buy in the Tampa market during the last week of August.
* Stumping in Colorado today, Obama contrasted his support for extending an expiring wind tax credit with Romney's opposition to it. "Without those tax credits, 37,000 American jobs, potentially including hundreds of jobs right here, would be at risk," Obama said.
* In the New Mexico Senate race, former Republican congresswoman Heather Wilson is up with a new TV ad attacking Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) for opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, and calling him an "extremist."
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Four aides to former Michigan Republican congressman Thaddeus McCotter were charged in connection with forged nominating petitions to get McCotter on the ballot, which he ultimately failed to do. McCotter resigned from Congress in July.
* The campaign of Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) continued to try to tie Elizabeth Warren's daughter to a Massachusetts effort to mail voter registration cards to welfare recipients. Warren's daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, chairs the board of a group supporting the effort to distribute the registration cards in multiple states. Brown's campaign sent out a fundraising email on the the issue earlier today.
* Crossroads GPS will pull its ad attacking North Dakota Democratic Senate nominee Heidi Heitkamp. Heitkamp flagged a statement in the spot about her spending taxpayer money on private airplanes as being "completely false."
* House Majority PAC, SEIU and AFSCME are launching a new TV ad hitting Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for voting to raise his own pay but voting against raising the minimum wage. The ad is part of a $400,000 buy. King is running against former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack in the 4th District.
THE FIX MIX:
Like father, like son.
With Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1364 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 9, 2012 Thursday 9:09 PM EST
Another Obama ad suggests that Mitt Romney paid no taxes in some years;
Another ad suggests Romney paid nothing for years.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 320 words
President Obama's campaign is out with its second ad suggesting that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney skirted taxes altogether at some points in his career.
As with a previous ad raising the same idea, this spot combines facts about Romney's money-management history with allegations that can't be proved - at least, unless the Republican candidate releases his tax returns.
"Did Romney pay 10 percent in taxes? Five percent? Zero?" the narrator asks. "We don't know." A clip plays in which Romney says he's "happy to go back and look" at his past tax returns.
The narrator continues, "But we do know that Romney personally approved over $70 million in fictional losses to the IRS as part of the notorious 'Son of Boss' tax scandal. One of the largest tax avoidance schemes in history. Isn't it time for Romney to come clean?"
Romney chaired the audit board of Marriott International from 1993 to 1998, as detailed in a Bloomberg article in February. During that time, according to the article, the company set up a tax shelter known as "Son of BOSS," an acronym for "bond and option sales strategies." Companies could avoid taxes by off-setting gains with paper losses. The IRS lost billions to these schemes and began cracking down on them as abusive in 2000; Marriott's setup was invalidated by a federal appeals court in 2009.
Asked about Romney's role, campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul told Bloomberg, "For details of Marriott's tax planning, we refer you to Marriott."
Romney has refused to release tax returns from before 2010, leading some Democrats to speculate about what he could be hiding - and others to outright accuse him of tax dodging.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly claimed that a former Bain investor told him that Romney did not pay taxes at all for 10 years.
Obama's campaign has not endorsed that attack, but it continues to edge close to that line.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1365 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 9, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Carlyle posts non-cash loss in its 2nd quarter
BYLINE: Thomas Heath
SECTION: A section; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 697 words
The Carlyle Group reported a second-quarter $59 million non-cash loss in income, which the District-based private-equity giant attributed in part to a poor June stock market, which forced the company to write down the value of some of its holdings.
The firm also reported its first dividend of 11 cents a share, payable Aug. 31, and said its distributable earnings - which include the money that the company earns on its investments - were $115 million, up 29 percent over a year ago. It cited strong fundraising and robust deal activity.
The loss in economic net income, a key metric used by private-equity analysts that includes unrealized gains or losses, compared with a $392 million non-cash profit in the first quarter.
Carlyle raised $3.9 billion in capital for its funds in the quarter and $6 billion this year. The company is coming out of a busy deal-making stretch, including the purchase of Hamilton Sundstrand from United Technologies and the reported $5 billion pending purchase of an automotive paint business from DuPont.
The company distributed $3 billion back to the pensions, foundations and investors who give Carlyle their money to invest. Out of that, Carlyle earned $115 million for its shareholders through fees and incentives.
"The fact is that distributable earnings is up year over year and is a strong indicator that we continue to generate strong gains or profits for our fund investors," Chief Operating Officer Glenn Youngkin said.
Private-equity firms own dozens of companies, and each quarter they must put a value on each of them. Because the stock market and companies were slammed in June, they were worth less and Carlyle had to mark down the value of some of its assets.
"The big distinction is paper gains you can't do anything with," Youngkin said. "But realized gains are cash. Our fund investors get cash, and as a result we get cash."
The company has seen its shares increase 10 percent since its initial public offering in May, which observers and analysts attribute to the company's modest debut price of $22 per unit, which is the private-equity term for stock shares. The stock closed at $22.34 Wednesday.
"Our firm, portfolio and funds are in very good shape, despite a quarter marked by significant volatility in global equity markets and continued uncertainty in Europe," Carlyle co-chief executive David M. Rubenstein said.Rubenstein said the distributable earnings metric, which he said best reflects Carlyle's steady, long-term horizon, was $785 million over the past 12 months.
Howard Chen, capital markets research analyst at Credit Suisse, said the upside for Carlyle is the diversity of the franchise, with what he called "best-in-class fundraising" and its ability to harvest investments across an array of funds and locales.
"The major concern for Carlyle and peers is global growth expectations have been dampened and the public markets remain very stop-start," said Chen, who has an "outperform" rating on the stock with a 12-month target of $37. "While they are long-term investors, they and their clients aren't immune to those factors."
Tim Loughran, a finance professor at Notre Dame, said Carlyle's stock performance to date "means it's not a flash in the pan. It's not like they are going into social media," he said. "They are buying auto paint. . . . Sometimes slow and steady and dull wins."
The private-equity industry has been in the news lately because Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney earned his fortune in the business, which has drawn criticism from President Obama and some of his fellow Democrats.
Rubenstein, a philanthropist who has given away millions, has taken a high-profile role as a defender of private equity, including speaking out on the subject at conferences. As president of the Economic Club of Washington, he has hosted several big-name financiers, including Warren Buffett (one of The Washington Post Co.'s largest shareholders) and Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein.
Carlyle calls itself a global alternative asset manager and has about $156 billion of assets under management across 94 funds. The company has 32 offices in 20 countries on six continents.
heatht@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1366 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 9, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Will Romney return his insurance rebate?
BYLINE: E.J. Dionne Jr.
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 763 words
Here's a chance for all who think Obamacare is a socialist Big Government scheme to put their money where their ideology is: If you truly hate the Affordable Care Act, you must send back any of those rebate checks you receive from your insurance companies thanks to the new law.
This is just common sense. If you think free enterprise should be liberated from Washington's interference, what right does Uncle Sam have to tell the insurers they owe you a better deal? Keeping those refunds will make you complicit with Leviathan.
And here's a challenge to Mitt Romney: You are running a deceitful ad about waivers the Obama administration has yet to issue based on rules allowing governors to operate their welfare-to-work programs more effectively. Will you please stop talking about your devotion to states' rights?
Up until now, you were the guy who said that wisdom on matters related to social programming (including health insurance) lies with state governments. Five governors, including two of your fellow Republicans, thought they had a better way to make welfare reform work. The Department of Health and Human Services responded by proposing to give states more latitude. Isn't that what honoring the good judgment of state governments is all about? Oh, yes, and if Romney thinks President Obama is gutting welfare reform, I anxiously await his criticism of Brian Sandoval of Nevada and Gary R. Herbert of Utah, GOP governors who requested waivers. If Romney means what he says, doesn't he have to condemn those who asked Obama to do what Obama did?
Political commentary these days is obsessed with the triviality of this campaign. Most of it is rooted in the refusal of conservatives to be candid about the implications of how their beliefs and commitments would affect the choices they would have government make - and how they differ from the president's.
In Romney's case, this often requires him to invent an Obama who exists only in the imagination of his ad makers. So they take Obama's statements, clip out relevant sentences and run ads attacking some strung-together words that have a limited connection to what the president said. In the welfare ad, Romney lies outright.
But this is part of a larger pattern on the right, illustrated most tellingly by conservative rhetoric around the Affordable Care Act. In going after Obamacare, conservatives almost never talk about the specific provisions of the law. They try to drown it in anti-government rhetoric. "Help us defeat Obamacare," Romney said after the Supreme Court declared the law constitutional. "Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and is killing jobs across this great country." Well, the new law does intrude directly in the insurance market. It requires that at least 85 percent of large-group premiums and 80 percent of small-group and individual premiums be spent directly on clinical services and improving the quality of health care. Imagine the radicalism: The government is telling insurance companies that they must spend most of the money they take in on actual health care for the people and businesses paying the premiums.
If the insurers spend below those levels, they have to refund the difference. According to Health and Human Services, 12.8 million Americans will get $1.1 billion in rebates. That comes to an average rebate of $151 per household. In 12 states, the rebates will average $300 or more. Here's your chance, conservatives. Big, bad government is forcing those nice insurance companies to give people a break. From what you say, you see this as socialism, a case of the heavy hand of Washington meddling with the right of contract. You cannot possibly keep this money. So stand up for those oppressed insurers and give them their rebates back!
As for the waivers on welfare, Romney's position is dispiriting. Here's a former governor whose Massachusetts health-care plan - the one that resembles Obamacare - was made possible by federal waivers; who, like other governors, wanted flexibility to do welfare reform his way; and who has said he would roll back Obamacare through the waiver process he now assails. He's turning away from what he claims to believe about state-level innovation for the sake of a cheap and misleading campaign point.
I'd also be curious to know whether Romney got a rebate on his health insurance premiums courtesy of Obamacare and whether he plans to return it. But given his attitude toward disclosure, we'll probably never find out.
ejdionne@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1367 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 9, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
U.S. racks up wins over China, but spoils are uncertain
BYLINE: Howard Schneider
SECTION: A section; Pg. A11
LENGTH: 1397 words
The United States has won an impressive string of victories against China at the World Trade Organization in the past few years but U.S. companies have seen only limited benefits, according to a review of the cases and interviews with analysts and officials familiar with them. U.S. challenges, for example, have led to the repeal of Chinese import tariffs on American-made auto parts. But by the time the United States prevailed, China was well on its way - with the help of the protective tariffs - to developing its own industry for manufacturing engines, transmissions and other components, say U.S. auto industry officials. The repeal did little to stem the long-term movement of auto-parts work from the United States to China.
Another WTO case challenging Chinese restrictions on U.S. film exports led to a partial opening of China's market. But China was able to maintain strict limits on how many major movie releases can be shown there each year, and studio box-office receipts are capped far below levels that prevail in the United States and other major markets.
The Obama administration has put enforcement of trade agreements at the heart of its approach toward China, the world's second-largest economy and an aggressive economic competitor. The Geneva-based WTO, which oversees the world's major trade treaties, is central to that effort. The WTO offers a neutral forum where a country can call out another for cheating. This was supposed to help keep nations honest when they trade with one another, fostering freer and fairer commerce and fueling economic growth all around. For the United States, the WTO was meant, in part, to help it navigate a thicket of economic challenges from China and other rapidly developing countries.
While President Obama and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney have been swapping accusations over who is tougher in tackling Chinese economic policies, there is more to the debate than scoring political points. The shared concerns over Chinese competition point out the limits of the WTO. Over the decade since China joined the organization, it has become increasingly clear that it is a flawed tool for prying open China's massive market to American exports. Major sections of the Chinese market, for example, remain out of the WTO's reach. China was allowed to join the organization in late 2001 without opening its government procurement to foreign companies, and it promised to negotiate a deal on this issue in the future. But China has yet to make an offer that the United States and other WTO members will accept.
In other areas of the economy, the Obama administration, like the George W. Bush administration, has proved adept at mounting successful challenges. Of 14 complaints brought by the United States against China, 11 have essentially prevailed. Three cases are pending. China has won three cases it brought against the United States and lost a fourth.
But winning in the courtroom is often only the start of the battle. What typically follows are negotiations between the two sides that determine what changes the losing side will make in its trade practices. Early cases won discrete benefits for the United States - such as the lifting of tax preferences that China offered its local companies - but later cases have bogged down in settlement talks.
The United States recently won a case involving restrictions on the activities of U.S. credit-card companies in China. Now, the matter is probably headed to appeal and protracted negotiations, during which time China's homegrown electronic-payments giant, China UnionPay, can continue solidifying the dominant market position it has built under state protection.
A WTO case brought in 2007 against China's lax intellectual-property laws was won by the United States two years later. But Lael Brainard, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, said recently that theft of U.S. intellectual property in China remains "rampant."
The WTO battle over American film exports also began in 2007 and was won by the United States in 2009. But it was only during this year's visit by incoming Chinese leader Xi Jinping that a settlement was concluded. Greg Frazier, executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, acknowledged the limits of that deal. Bumping the number of imported first-run films from 20 to 34 per year was hardly a revolution. The increase in studio box-office receipts from 13 percent to 25 percent still falls short of the typical 50-50 split. To get the agreement, the United States also had to agree to leave the government's China Film Group as the country's sole film importer.
But U.S. business officials say they accept that progress with China will always be grudgingly step by step.
"The view was, use the WTO to crack restrictions, which had been in place for 20 years, and try to set up a dynamic that will feed into commercial changes that are taking place," Frazier said. "People look at this market, and they want to transform it. It's not in the cards. You do what is politically feasible."
Some U.S. executives say American companies should stay engaged in China and cut deals as they can.
"China is going to be the world's biggest economy, and U.S. companies have to figure out how to do business there," said John G. Rice, General Electric's vice chairman.
Experts say it is unlikely that WTO enforcement will broadly change China's policies. The Chinese "think they have a pretty good model, and they don't see the WTO as an institution that can make major changes," said Gary Hufbauer, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who follows U.S.-China economic relations. "Modest changes. Minor changes. But not major systemic change."
Obama administration officials say they hope recent WTO cases will hit at the core of China's industrial policy. That means, for example, challenging China's export restrictions on rare-earth minerals critical to high-tech manufacturing, as well as other industrial raw materials. U.S. officials say they hope persistence - increasing the number and complexity of cases filed in Geneva - will pay off and prompt China's policymakers to avoid adopting trade measures that they know will be successfully challenged.
"There has been a seminal shift under this administration in how the United States enforces trade agreements with respect to China and other countries," said Timothy Reif, general counsel at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. "Our role is to make clear that if they are going to engage in inconsistencies, we will fight it and, when necessary, litigate it."
Reif has hired three Mandarin-proficient lawyers over the past year to work with Katherine Tai, the office's chief counsel for China trade enforcement, and the pace of case filings has increased. The new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center is focusing on China and has drawn in personnel from other agencies. The rare-earths challenge was considered so complex and sensitive, its preparation involved help from the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and intelligence agencies, and extensive deliberations with the White House.
WTO challenges are not the only tool the United States has to try to open China's market. The Commerce Department has imposed dozens of tariffs on Chinese products considered unfairly priced or subsidized. The United States also holds regular high-level talks with China to push trade and economic issues.
But in the 10 years since China joined the WTO, the group has become the venue for a steady series of trade battles.
China was quick to settle the first cases brought against it, said Henry Gao of the Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade, but is now fighting back more aggressively and negotiating tougher when it loses.
The country has sent promising young lawyers to programs such as Georgetown University's Institute of International Economic Law, begun sending more participants to world trade forums and panels, and expanded Chinese organizations such as the Shanghai Institute to press its viewpoint.
The Chinese "don't like litigation, and there was a lack of experience with the WTO system" in the early years, Gao said. But the country recognizes that the WTO is one field in "the competition for economic supremacy."
schneiderh@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1368 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 9, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Conservatives blast Romney on health care
BYLINE: Rosalind S. Helderman;Aaron Blake
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 877 words
Mitt Romney drew new fire from his conservative allies on a familiar topic Wednesday - health-care reform - as his spokeswoman offered unusual praise for his efforts on the issue as Massachusetts governor. In an interview with Fox News Channel on Wednesday, Andrea Saul invoked Massachusetts's expansion of health coverage as a defense to a harsh new ad funded by a super PAC supporting President Obama. In the spot, a former steelworker whose plant was closed by Bain Capital blames Romney, who co-founded the firm, for his family's loss of health insurance and his wife's subsequent death from cancer.
"To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health-care plan, they would have had health care," Saul said in the interview. "There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama's economy."
The comments were unusual for a campaign that has typically steered clear of the 2006 Massachusetts overhaul, sensitive to conservatives' concerns that the program too closely mimics the Democratic health-care law they are determined to undo.
At an event in Iowa on Wednesday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee offered his Massachusetts experience to show that he is an expert on health-care reform.
"We've got to do some reforms in health care, and I have some experience doing that, as you know," he told a crowd, after receiving a standing ovation for repeating his promise to repeal Obama's law.
Romney has always maintained that although his reform efforts worked for Massachusetts, the federal government should not force a similar solution on the nation.
He has said that on his first day as president, he would sign an executive order offering states a waiver to opt out of the law and would sign any repeal legislation passed by Congress.
Although he has never disavowed the Massachusetts effort, he has often appeared hesitant to discuss the program, which drew harsh criticism from his Republican rivals during the presidential primaries. The Massachusetts and federal programs both include a core requirement that participants buy medical insurance or pay a fee.
Early in the primary contest, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty chided that the two programs were so similar, they could be called "Obamneycare." Former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) once said that Romney's efforts in Massachusetts made him the worst possible Republican to face Obama.
Along those lines, the twin moments of praise Wednesday for the Massachusetts program elicited immediate howls of protest from conservatives. After all, they said, if Romney believes that expanding health coverage through a government program was a positive development for Massachusetts residents, couldn't Democrats argue that other Americans should receive similar protections?
"Andrea Saul's appearance on Fox was a potential gold mine for Obama supporters," conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday. "They can say, 'Romneycare was the basis for our health care.' "
Conservative commentator Erick Erickson called Saul's remark an "an unforced error of monumental idiocy" that revived conservative wariness of Romney. "Consider the scab picked, the wound opened and the distrust trickling out again," he wrote on RedState.com.
In the Priorities USA super PAC ad to which Saul was responding, Joe Soptic, a former employee at GST Steel in Kansas City, Mo., says he no longer had health insurance after losing his job at the company. Without coverage, Soptic's wife, Ilyona "Ranae" Soptic, died of cancer. But the ad does not note that Romney had left Bain by the time GST Steel declared bankruptcy in 2001. And Soptic's wife died in 2006, five years after the plant closed.
"This ad just shows the depths to which President Obama and his allies will go to smear Mitt Romney," Saul said in the Fox interview.
The Romney team has called on the Obama campaign to disavow the ad by the independent group. On Wednesday, it cried foul when several Obama campaign aides said they were unfamiliar with Joe Soptic's history, even though the former steelworker had told his story during an Obama conference call in May.
Some conservatives on Wednesday said praise for the Massachusetts program did little to blunt their confidence that Romney would work to end the federal program if elected.
"The key policy here is overturning the president's health-care legislation. And on that, Governor Romney has been crystal clear," said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a tea-party-affiliated group that has led protests against the law.Independent pollster Brad Corker said it might be risky but astute for Romney to find new ways to cast his Massachusetts health-care experience, once considered the signature achievement of his time in office.
Conservatives, he argued, dislike Obama's approach so deeply that they are unlikely to stay home on Election Day.
But independent voters might be impressed to hear that Romney has given serious thought to addressing flaws in the health-care system beyond criticizing Obama.
"It would help blunt the 'Romney wants to take away your health care' argument," he said.
heldermanr@washpost.com
blakea@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1369 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 9, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
BYLINE: Greg Sargent
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 439 words
Ad featuring woman's death dramatizes larger debate
Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting President Obama, released a much-discussed ad that implies Bain Capital is to blame for the death of the wife of a laid-off steelworker. I think the ad goes too far, given that Joe Soptic's wife died five years after Bain closed his plant and that she had - though later lost - her own health insurance - for a time - after he lost his job. It's true that uninsured people are less likely to survive cancer. But the circumstances of her illness are so unclear, even in Mr. Soptic's telling, that there is no way to determine whether she would have died if he hadn't been fired.
The ad doesn't say outright that Mitt Romney is to blame for this woman's death. It's meant to dramatize that decisions like the one Bain made to lay off Soptic have long-term consequences. But on Wednesday, the Romney camp responded to the ad in a way that makes this whole dust-up important: "If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health-care plan, they would have had health care," spokeswoman Andrea Saul said on Fox News.
Conservatives are apoplectic. They think this has given the Obama team a big opening to remake its case about Obamacare - and they're right. The Romney campaign seems to be claiming that government-established universal health care is the answer to what to do about people who lack insurance. That is Obama's argument for Obamacare. The Romney team will argue that it favors only state-based insurance mandates to achieve universal coverage. That's true. But this debate is occurring in the context of a presidential race, and something approaching universal health care is the law of the land. As president, however, Romney would take it away from people like the Soptics without specifying what he would replace it with.
Even if this ad makes unsupportable charges, and even if you think there's nothing objectionable about Bain's conduct, the ad dramatizes a larger story. There is a straightforward difference of opinion between the presidential candidates over the degree to which the federal government should intervene to protect people like Ms. Soptic. Obama believes in aggressive federal action to cushion the blow of market outcomes like the one that hit the Soptics with such force. Romney - even though his campaign has said universal health care is the right answer in cases like Ms. Soptic's - is promising to roll back government protections for such families. Whatever you think of the ad, that's the more important argument to be having.
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1370 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 9, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Scotts Miracle-Gro goes out on a limb with political donation
BYLINE: T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A section; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 814 words
In an election year filled with secret campaign money, the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has made the unlikely choice to go public with a big political donation.
The Ohio-based company, familiar as the producer of a ubiquitous plant fertilizer, is now a political player, donating $200,000 in June to the Restore Our Future super PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. That makes Miracle-Gro among the first public companies with well-known consumer brands to publicly enter the new world of campaign funding. That world has been reshaped by the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed direct corporate spending on election campaigns.
Spending by interest groups active in the presidential race has risen dramatically as a result of that landmark ruling. But the vast majority of donors that have been publicly disclosed are rich individuals and private companies that don't have much to lose by aligning with a political party because they don't mass-market brand products to consumers who might disagree with the contributions.At the time of the Supreme Court's decision, Democrats and their allies warned that it could lead to large companies with billions in quarterly profits unleashing their massive bank accounts on political campaigns. So far, big public companies have been shy about taking advantage of the looser restrictions. Many have decided not to donate, while others have given to groups that are not required to disclose their donors.
James Hagedorn, Miracle-Gro's chairman and chief executive, made the choice to support Romney with company funds, said Jim King, a senior vice president at the company. The company's lobbyists presented Hagedorn with options for contributing in the presidential race, including ways to keep the company's name private.
"His point of view was, 'If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it in the light of day,' " said King, who spoke for the company.
The company would benefit from a Romney presidency, King said, citing the Republican's policies on corporate tax reform, business regulation and federal spending, and the belief that Romney could revive a weak economy.
Before new laws were passed in 2003, big companies routinely made large donations to the political parties.
The current corporate hesitancy to donate publicly stems in part from the experience of Target Corp. in 2010. After donating to support a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who opposed gay marriage, Target faced a nationwide boycott.
Another controversy has underscored the risk: The fast-food chain Chick-fil-A has been targeted with protests in recent weeks for comments by its chief executive and donations it made to groups opposing gay marriage.
The Miracle-Gro donation has drawn little attention, but an unscientific sampling of shoppers at a District garden store recently pointed to the potential to alienate at least some consumers.
"It's a plant fertilizer - it's not for growing political parties," said Joan Harris, of Georgetown.
Another customer, graduate student Alanna Tievsky, said she would likely "think twice" in the future about buying the fertilizer. "If there were two options and they were the same price, I would definitely buy the other one," said Tievsky, who said she supports President Obama for reelection.
King said the company anticipated some backlash but thought the benefits outweighed the risk. "Just as many people applaud you and say 'I'm going to buy your products for life,' " King said.
Hagedorn's father, Horace, a Madison Avenue marketing genius, created Miracle-Gro and founded the company in 1950. Together with his siblings, James Hagedorn owns 30 percent of the company, giving him a tight hold on power.
Perhaps the biggest reason why Miracle-Gro made the donation may be Hagedorn himself. A former F-16 fighter pilot known for making analogies to war fighting, Hagedorn has shown a willingness to take controversial stances, such as firing workers who won't agree to quit smoking as part of a plan to cut health-care costs.
Although he lives in New York, Hagedorn has been more involved in Ohio politics. He is a registered Republican who broke with the party to endorse former Ohio governor Ted Strickland (D) in his 2010 reelection race, taping a campaign commercial for him.
"Why would Jim Hagedorn and Republicans support a Democrat?" Hagedorn says in the ad. "Ted Strickland understands the issues that business people deal with."
Recently, Hagedorn has been proving his Republican bona fides in the wake of Strickland's defeat. Last year he started raising money to help the winner of the governor's race, John Kasich, pass a budget.
Hagedorn has met Romney twice, once for a one-on-one meeting during the Republican primary and again at a fundraiser where he made a $2,500 personal donation to the candidate.
farnamt@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1371 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 9, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
For anti-Romney ads, Democrats call Joe the Steelworker
BYLINE: Nia-Malika Henderson
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 864 words
In 2008, it was Joe the Plumber. This year, it's Joe the Steelworker. Joe Soptic, 62, has become a go-to figure for supporters of President Obama, appearing this week in his second campaign ad talking about being laid off from a Kansas City, Mo., steel plant that was taken over by Bain Capital in 1993.
In the ad, released Tuesday by the super PAC Priorities USA and titled "Understands," Soptic makes his most heated claim to date, suggesting a link between his wife's death five years ago and the Bain takeover."When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care, and my family lost their health care," Soptic says in the minute-long spot. "And a short time after that, my wife became ill . . . she passed away in 22 days."
On Wednesday, Obama advisers distanced themselves from the former steelworker and the most recent ad, saying they were unaware of the details of Soptic's account about his wife. "We don't have any knowledge of the story of the family," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Air Force One.
But in addition to running its own ad with Soptic, the Obama campaign featured him in a conference call with reporters in May, when he shared his story.
Republicans pounced on the discrepancy. "Still no knowledge, Jen?" a news release from the Republican National Committee taunted after reports of the conference call surfaced.
Bain's initial investment in Soptic's steel company was made under the leadership of Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The company took on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt while paying Bain investors millions in dividends. But Romney was no longer actively managing Bain when the steel company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001 and closed its Kansas City plant, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs and their health insurance, as well as part of their pensions.
When Ilyona "Ranae" Soptic died in 2006, Romney was governor of Massachusetts.
Campaigns have long sought regular people to carry their messages to voters, betting that personal stories and plain speaking are more effective than the poll-driven talking points of the candidates and their aides. Romney has used entrepreneurs flashing calloused hands and touting their successful businesses to suggest that Obama doesn't understand free enterprise. Democrats have featured workers such as Soptic, who say they lost their livelihoods because of Romney, to suggest that the Republican's approach to business gutted companies and communities rather than creating jobs.Although the ads typically last a minute or so, the lives and stories that inspire them are more complicated. For example, five years passed between the time Soptic lost his job as a steelworker and his wife's death, yet the ad seems to compress the timing and suggests a correlation.
Soptic, a lifelong Democrat and union member, said an Internet search led Democratic groups to his story, first reported in local newspapers several years ago.
"This all started back in December. They wanted to know how our lives have changed since the plant closed and how I felt," he said in an interview Tuesday.
Soptic, who appeared in Obama's first television ad about Romney's record at Bain in May, continued: "I think the reason they keep coming back to me is because of everything that has happened in our life since the plant closed."
As a steelworker, Soptic was part of a crew that removed slag debris from underneath furnaces used in the steelmaking process. His last day on the job came in March 2001, after GS Industries filed for bankruptcy.
"It was quite a culture shock for all of us," said Soptic, who was earning $46,000 a year. "It took me six months to find a job."
He was hired as a school custodian, making about $15,000 a year.
Soptic cast himself as a spokesman for his fellow crew members, who still get together once a month for breakfast. "Everyone is quite proud because the story had to be told," he said.
Soptic said Priorities USA, the super PAC supporting Obama, contacted him about a week ago to alert him to the latest ad, which was partially shot in his home and at the union hall. In it, he talks about the loss of his wife of 30 years.
The ad shows Soptic, the father of a grown daughter, frozen in time as a grieving widower and a bitter former steelworker struggling to make ends meet. Yet today, that is only part of his story. With his pension and custodial salary, he makes about $46,000, which is what he made in 2001 when he lost his job.
He also has a new wife - his high school sweetheart from 42 years ago.
"It all had a happy ending," Soptic told The Washington Post.
He declined to comment on whether he thinks Romney is to blame for his first wife's death, as the ad seems to suggest. Referring to his former employer, he said, "They made certain promises, and I feel like if they did fulfill those promises, she would have had health insurance."
CNN reported that Ilyona Soptic had health insurance through her employer when her husband lost his job. But she was not employed and no longer had coverage by the time her end-stage cancer was diagnosed.hendersonn@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1372 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
In the Loop
August 9, 2012 Thursday 7:58 PM EST
Loop Quote of The Week;
This week goes to Mitt Romney, lamenting that campaigns keep repeating claims long after they've been debunked by fact-checkers.
BYLINE: Al Kamen
LENGTH: 127 words
This week's winner is GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who said, wistfully, that things just aren't like they used to be.
"You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad," Romney said on a radio show. "They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they're wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them." This from someone who just received a maximum Four Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler for an ad about Obama's welfare policies that even Newt said there was no proof for.
(For the record: we've never, ever, gotten more than one Pinocchio.)
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1373 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 9, 2012 Thursday 4:39 PM EST
Why Todd Akin's win gives Democrats hope in Missouri;
Akin's win helps McCaskill turn the election into a choice.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 654 words
Senate Democrats got exactly what they wanted in Missouri on Tuesday night. Now comes the hard part.
Republican Rep. Todd Akin's primary victory clearly boosted vulnerable Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill's survival odds this fall. But to win, McCaskill will have to make the general election campaign as much about her opponent as herself.
That's easier said than done. But Akin - and some of the things he's said in the past - does make it a bit easier.
There's a reason why Democrats spent over $1.5 million trying to help Akin win his three-way primary. He was the most conservative candidate in the field - and the most unpredictable one. He shook up his campaign staff late last year. He recently released a head-scratching and jumbled campaign ad. And Democrats have already launched a microsite highlighting his controversial statements that won't play well with moderates. ("America has got the equivalent of the stage III cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in," Akin once said.)
Akin is far from an ideal Republican nominee. But the GOP doesn't need a superstar to defeat McCaskill. She is running in a state where Mitt Romney is expected to defeat President Obama. She will have to confront opposition ads that will attack her for billing taxpayers for trips she took on a plane she co-owned with her husband. She has long been one of the most high profile backers of the President.
And, recent polling from Mason Dixon Polling & Research Inc. shows McCaskill is losing to Akin by a slight margin. (It is worth noting that the same poll of the primary electorate showed businessman John Brunner leading Akin by 16 points.)
"I'm not going to tell you this is definitely a gimme for McCaskill, but I think the framework of the race is different," said Democratic strategist Roy Temple, a veteran of Missouri politics.
In just about every Senate race featuring a vulnerable Democratic incumbent running in a state Obama is likely to lose, the GOP strategy has been consistent: Tie the Democrat to Obama and his policies via paid media efforts. Then, repeat.
In Missouri, the strength of this line of attack will be especially important for the GOP. Akin's tendency to chart his own path (which, on occasion, has also been the politically problematic one) suggests that Democrats might be handed new fodder for their own attack ads this fall.
Akin's uncompromising brand of social conservatism, for example, might lead him to say something that may give political moderates - the same moderates who don't like the economic policies advanced by Obama and Senate Democrats - pause in the Senate race.
But to be clear, Akin isn't even close to being on the same level of surprise 2010 primary winners like Sharron Angle (Nev.)and Christine O'Donnell (Del.) - two GOP Senate nominees with scant political resumes and even less political sense.
Akin has won congressional campaigns, he's from the heavily populated St. Louis area and he doesn't have any characteristics that blatantly disqualify him from serving in the Senate - particularly when running against a politically damaged incumbent like McCaskill and in a statewide political environment likely to be tipped toward Republicans.
"[McCaskill] can try to make the argument of, 'Hey, this Republican is too conservative,' but at the end of the day what's more important to Missouri voters is they are worried about their financial future," said Missouri Republican strategist James Harris, who worked for Sarah Steelman, one of Akin's primary opponents.
Everything has to go right in the fall for McCaskill to survive. Akin has to slip up, she has to be flawless, and it may even take a little luck. But on this day, Democrats can argue that much of the race has gone right for them so far, with Akin's win being the latest example of their strategy succeeding. And they'd be correct.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1374 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 9, 2012 Thursday 4:19 PM EST
Romney ad: Obama waging 'war on religion';
Attacks ramp up in play for Catholic vote.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 418 words
Mitt Romney makes an appeal to the Catholic vote with his latest ad, moving away from the economy to talk about health care and contraception.
President Obama has touted newly expanded contraception coverage in ads aimed at women. Now Romney is using the expanded coverage to say the president declared a "war on religion."
The presumptive Republican nominee's ad features both former Polish president Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II - a clear play for the Catholic (and Polish) vote.
"Who shares your values?" the narrator asks. "President Obama used his health care plan to declare war on religion, forcing religious institutions to go against their faith."
The reference is to a Health and Human Services regulation that requires insurers to cover contraception without out-of-pocket costs. Churches, synagogues and mosques are exempt. In a compromise designed to quell criticism, church-affiliated employers (such as universities) do not have to directly provide contraception coverage. Women who work for those institutions will get contraception coverage directly from insurance companies, at no extra cost. But that compromise did not satisfy Catholic critics.
In a a clip from Romney's speech in Poland last month, the candidate quotes the last pope saying, "Be not afraid."
The narrator concludes, "When religious freedom is threatened, who do you want to stand with?"
During the Republican primary, when the Health and Human Services Department mandated that most insurance cover contraception without a co-pay, charges of a war on religion were commonplace.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich accused both Obama and Romney of attacking religion. (As Massachusetts governor, Romney signed a law in 2005 to expand Medicaid coverage of the emergency contraceptive Plan B.) Texas Gov. Rick Perry used the "war on religion" line in an ad that was widely mocked.
Romney was a bit more subtle. He said in February that Obama's administration "fought against religion" and had a "secular agenda." In April he said, "I think there is in this country a war against religion."
But making that accusation directly against the White House incumbent goes further toward making religion an issue in the race.
Christen Varley, executive director of the social conservative advocacy group Conscience Cause, called the ad "a critical moment in the presidential campaign" that sends a message that "religious freedom and freedom of conscience are an issue in the November elections."
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1375 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 9, 2012 Thursday 11:25 AM EST
Romney moves to embrace 'Romneycare';
The health care bill which shall not be named is starting to get mentioned.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 669 words
The health-care law which shall not be named is starting to get mentioned.
Twice today, Mitt Romney's campaign has cited the health-care law he signed as Massachusetts governor - seeking credit for something it took pains to explain away during the Republican primary race.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul, responding to a harsh new super PAC ad featuring a man who blames Bain Capital for his uninsured wife's death, broke new ground for the campaign by praising Romney's health insurance mandate.
"To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care," Saul said on Fox News. "There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama's economy." (These comments are around the 2-minute mark in the video above.)
Similarly, at an event in Iowa today, Romney seemed to suggest his bill qualifies him to tackle reforming Obama's bill: "We've got to do some reforms in health care, and I have some experience doing that as you know, and I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care."
It's a very novel strategy. And it's fraught with danger.
Obama's health-care law remains perhaps the biggest arrow in the GOP's 2012 election quiver, because it so motivates the GOP base against the president.
Romney has been criticized for enacting a very similar law in Massachusetts. He was largely able to finesse the issue in the primary season and gather conservatives to his side for the general election. But there remain some concerns that his own health-care law may make it harder for him to prosecute the case against Obama's law.
Top conservatives, including radio host Rush Limbaugh, were quick to criticize the move.
"Andrea Saul's appearance on Fox was a potential gold mine for Obama supporters," Limbaugh said. "They can say, 'Romneycare was the basis for our health care.'"
RedState.com editor Erick Erickson agreed: "OMG. This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election. Wow," he tweeted . He added on his blog that this might be the moment of Romney's "Read My Lips" betrayal of his right-wing supporters.
Conservative commentator Philip Klein added: "Not sure if the Romney camp realizes what a huge opening they've just created for Ds on Obamacare."
Added a Republican strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly: "I don't get it, but I have never understood their position on the Massachusetts Plan. Doesn't seem helpful to me."
Saul's comment, in particular, seems to try to take credit for the individual mandate portion of Romney's health care bill, which to conservatives is the most objectionable portion of Obama's bill.
Still, some say Romney may be wise to address the issue and suggest conservatives will turn out no matter what.
"It is a bit of a risk, but it would help blunt the 'Romney wants to take away your health care' argument," said independent pollster Brad Coker. "I have a notion that the 'conservatives are not going to show up' is a canard. They might not love Romney, but they hate Obama more."
Republican strategist Jon Lerner said he saw no problem with Romney making such a case.
"It's perfectly appropriate for him to now talk about his experience in health care policy," Lerner said. "Conservatives will not object, short of Romney embracing Obamacare, which is about as likely as him embracing the 'you didn't build that' idea."
Romney has generally distanced himself from his health-care law, noting that a Democratic-controlled state legislature made changes that he didn't necessarily agree with. He has also made a federalist argument, saying that states should be entitled to make such changes, but that Washington shouldn't institute a national bill.
It remains to be seen whether this was a calculated pivot by the Romney campaign or just some wayward messaging. The campaign has not yet responded to a follow-up question.
Updated at 4:07 p.m.
Philip Rucker contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1376 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 9, 2012 Thursday 2:36 AM EST
Spin and counterspin in the welfare debate;
Is Obama "gutting" Bill Clinton's welfare law? Did Romney ask for the same thing as governor? Nope on both counts.
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 1472 words
"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
- Mitt Romney campaign ad released Aug. 7, 2012
"This is a common sense reform to give governors - including some of Romney's supporters - flexibility to live up to the goals of the welfare reform law. Romney should know: He used to support these kinds of waivers. In 2005, he joined other Republican governors in a letter to Senator Frist, urging the Senate to move quickly on 'increased waiver authority' for the welfare program."
- Obama campaign defense on its Web site
When Bill Clinton signed the bill overhauling welfare 16 years ago, the 42nd president declared: "After I sign my name to this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue. The two parties cannot attack each other over it. Politicians cannot attack poor people over it. There are no encrusted habits, systems, and failures that can be laid at the foot of someone else."
Oops, guess he was wrong about that.
In an effort to reopen the welfare war, Mitt Romney this week began airing a tough ad that accuses President Obama of wanting to do away with the work requirements embedded in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. In effect, Romney is trying to suggest that Obama is such a left-winger that he would undo a central achievement of a Democratic icon.
People forget that Clinton's signing of the bill - a few months before the 1996 presidential election - was highly controversial. Clinton, in his signing speech, spent almost as much time talking about the things he disliked in the GOP-crafted bill as he did about the parts he liked. Key members of his administration resigned in protest. And a young state senator in Illinois named Barack Obama also expressed his opposition.
This is a complex issue, and highly technical, which makes it ripe for spin and counterspin. Neither side necessarily conducts itself with glory here.
The Facts
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the centerpiece of the 1996 legislation, established work requirements and time-limited benefits for recipients. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services, without much fanfare, issued a memorandum saying that it was encouraging "states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment." As part of that, the HHS secretary would consider issuing waivers to states concerning worker participation targets.
On the surface, one would think conservatives would applaud the federal government giving greater flexibility to the states. But the administration appears to have done this without much consultation with Congress, and it also asserted a novel waiver authority that took GOP lawmakers by surprise. (Essentially, work provisions are contained in section 407, which cannot be waived, but because 407 is mentioned in section 402, which allows waivers, the administration asserted waiver authority.)
The text of the memorandum states that HHS "will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals" of the legislation. "States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project," the memo added.
But conservatives smelled a rat. Robert Rector, a welfare expert at the Heritage Foundation, announced that "Obama Guts Welfare Reform" - a headline featured in the Romney ad. Mickey Kaus, another welfare expert, also outlined various ways that the language in the memorandum could be used to water down work requirements, and allow welfare rolls to soar.
By contrast, left-leaning groups that have been concerned about the legislation, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, praised the move. The change "will strengthen welfare reform by giving states greater flexibility to test more effective strategies for helping recipients prepare for, find, and retain jobs - and measure their accomplishments in more meaningful ways than the current system allows," wrote LaDonna Pavetti.
A more nuanced view comes from Ron Haskins, who was instrumental in crafting the original law. He told our colleagues at Wonkblog that the concept of the waivers is a good one, though the process used by the administration was unfair. "It might not be illegal," he said. "But [HHS] didn't even consult with the Republicans. They knew the spirit of the law, and they violated that."
In other words, we are mainly talking about a process foul and poor coordination with Congress. One of the main critics of the waivers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), conceded as much when the Salt Lake Tribune noted that the administration said it was responding to a request from the Republican governor of Hatch's state.
"Hatch does not believe that HHS has the legal authority to waive TANF work rules," Hatch spokesman Matt Harakal told the Tribune. "This is a completely different issue than giving states flexibility through a regular reauthorization of TANF."
It is also important to note that no waivers have yet been issued. The Romney campaign ad goes much too far when it suggests Obama has already taken action to "drop work requirements." The ad further states that "under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and you wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Here, the Romney campaign is asserting an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules, but it is certainly not based on any specific "Obama plan." (The Romney campaign often cries foul when Obama offers his own interpretation of still-vague Romney plans.) What really matters are the plans submitted by governors - and, as our colleague Greg Sargent noted, the two Republican governors seeking waivers issued statements saying they were not planning to weaken work requirements.
The Obama counterspin
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign claims that Romney himself sought a similar waiver when he was governor of Massachusetts, citing a 2005 letter that he signed along with other Republican governors urging that the House and Senate settle their differences and agree to an extension of the welfare law.
As far as we can determine from studying ancient history, this is a case of apples and oranges.
Yes, the letter speaks of "increased waiver authority," but this refers to language in a pending Senate bill updating the welfare overhaul, not to a waiver of work requirements. Indeed, that bill would have increased mandatory work requirements, from 50 to 70 percent (see section 109), while at the same time adding flexibility to the states in terms of countable activities.
"I believe the approach envisioned in the PRIDE bill is an appropriate compromise between these perspectives, one which favors work and one which favors increased flexibility," Hatch said in his statement concerning the drafting of the legislation. (Still, Rector of Heritage was no fan of the legislation either, saying the bill "will encourage self-destructive idleness among recipients.")
Moreover, the governors were addressing their concerns through the legislative route, on a bill that at the time had bipartisan support.
So, here, the Obama campaign is seizing on similar phrasing ("waiver") to misleadingly portray Romney as two-faced in this issue.
The Pinocchio Test
The campaigns' descent into gotcha politics is increasingly dispiriting.
Conservatives may have legitimate concerns about the process in which the administration has approached this issue, or its legal reasoning, but that does not excuse the Romney campaign from charging that there is an "Obama plan" to weaken the law and issue welfare checks to people who do not work.
All things being equal, the Romney ad leans more toward four Pinocchios. There is something fishy about the administration's process on this memorandum, but that does not excuse the Romney campaign's over-the-top ad.
Four Pinocchios
(for Romney)
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is being disingenuous when it suggests Romney sought the same sort of waiver authority when he was governor, when there is little evidence that is the case. The claim that Romney sought waiver authority in 2005 is worth a solid three.
Three Pinocchios
(for Obama)
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1377 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
Carlyle posts non-cash loss in its 2nd quarter
BYLINE: Thomas Heath
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 696 words
The Carlyle Group reported a second-quarter $59 million non-cash loss in income, which the District-based private-equity giant attributed in part to a poor June stock market, which forced the company to write down the value of some of its holdings.
The firm also reported its first dividend of 11 cents a share, payable Aug. 31, and said its distributable earnings - which include the money that the company earns on its investments - were $115 million, up 29 percent over a year ago. It cited strong fundraising and robust deal activity.
The loss in economic net income, a key metric used by private-equity analysts that includes unrealized gains or losses, compared with a $392 million non-cash profit in the first quarter.
Carlyle raised $3.9 billion in capital for its funds in the quarter and $6 billion this year. The company is coming out of a busy deal-making stretch, including the purchase of Hamilton Sundstrand from United Technologies and the reported $5 billion pending purchase of an automotive paint business from DuPont.
The company distributed $3 billion back to the pensions, foundations and investors who give Carlyle their money to invest. Out of that, Carlyle earned $115 million for its shareholders through fees and incentives.
"The fact is that distributable earnings is up year over year and is a strong indicator that we continue to generate strong gains or profits for our fund investors," Chief Operating Officer Glenn Youngkin said.
Private-equity firms own dozens of companies, and each quarter they must put a value on each of them. Because the stock market and companies were slammed in June, they were worth less and Carlyle had to mark down the value of some of its assets.
"The big distinction is paper gains you can't do anything with," Youngkin said. "But realized gains are cash. Our fund investors get cash, and as a result we get cash."
The company has seen its shares increase 10 percent since its initial public offering in May, which observers and analysts attribute to the company's modest debut price of $22 per unit, which is the private-equity term for stock shares. The stock closed at $22.34 Wednesday.
"Our firm, portfolio and funds are in very good shape, despite a quarter marked by significant volatility in global equity markets and continued uncertainty in Europe," Carlyle co-chief executive David M. Rubenstein said.
Rubenstein said the distributable earnings metric, which he said best reflects Carlyle's steady, long-term horizon, was $785 million over the past 12 months.
Howard Chen, capital markets research analyst at Credit Suisse, said the upside for Carlyle is the diversity of the franchise, with what he called "best-in-class fundraising" and its ability to harvest investments across an array of funds and locales.
"The major concern for Carlyle and peers is global growth expectations have been dampened and the public markets remain very stop-start," said Chen, who has an "outperform" rating on the stock with a 12-month target of $37. "While they are long-term investors, they and their clients aren't immune to those factors."
Tim Loughran, a finance professor at Notre Dame, said Carlyle's stock performance to date "means it's not a flash in the pan. It's not like they are going into social media," he said. "They are buying auto paint. . . . Sometimes slow and steady and dull wins."
The private-equity industry has been in the news lately because Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney earned his fortune in the business, which has drawn criticism from President Obama and some of his fellow Democrats.
Rubenstein, a philanthropist who has given away millions, has taken a high-profile role as a defender of private equity, including speaking out on the subject at conferences. As president of the Economic Club of Washington, he has hosted several big-name financiers, including Warren Buffett (one of The Washington Post Co.'s largest shareholders) and Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein.
Carlyle calls itself a global alternative asset manager and has about $156 billion of assets under management across 94 funds. The company has 32 offices in 20 countries on six continents.
heatht@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1378 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Regional Edition
Will Romney return his insurance rebate?
BYLINE: E.J. Dionne Jr.
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 756 words
Here's a chance for all who think Obamacare is a socialist Big Government scheme to put their money where their ideology is: If you truly hate the Affordable Care Act, you must send back any of those rebate checks you receive from your insurance companies thanks to the new law.
This is just common sense. If you think free enterprise should be liberated from Washington's interference, what right does Uncle Sam have to tell the insurers they owe you a better deal? Keeping those refunds will make you complicit with Leviathan.
And here's a challenge to Mitt Romney: You are running a deceitful ad about waivers the Obama administration has yet to issue based on rules allowing governors to operate their welfare-to-work programs more effectively. Will you please stop talking about your devotion to states' rights?
Up until now, you were the guy who said that wisdom on matters related to social programming (including health insurance) lies with state governments. Five governors, including two of your fellow Republicans, thought they had a better way to make welfare reform work. The Department of Health and Human Services responded by proposing to give states more latitude. Isn't that what honoring the good judgment of state governments is all about?
Oh, yes, and if Romney thinks President Obama is gutting welfare reform, I anxiously await his criticism of Brian Sandoval of Nevada and Gary R. Herbert of Utah, GOP governors who requested waivers. If Romney means what he says, doesn't he have to condemn those who asked Obama to do what Obama did?
Political commentary these days is obsessed with the triviality of this campaign. Most of it is rooted in the refusal of conservatives to be candid about the implications of how their beliefs and commitments would affect the choices they would have government make - and how they differ from the president's.
In Romney's case, this often requires him to invent an Obama who exists only in the imagination of his ad makers. So they take Obama's statements, clip out relevant sentences and run ads attacking some strung-together words that have a limited connection to what the president said. In the welfare ad, Romney lies outright.
But this is part of a larger pattern on the right, illustrated most tellingly by conservative rhetoric around the Affordable Care Act. In going after Obamacare, conservatives almost never talk about the specific provisions of the law. They try to drown it in anti-government rhetoric. "Help us defeat Obamacare," Romney said after the Supreme Court declared the law constitutional. "Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and is killing jobs across this great country."
Well, the new law does intrude directly in the insurance market. It requires that at least 85 percent of large-group premiums and 80 percent of small-group and individual premiums be spent directly on clinical services and improving the quality of health care. Imagine the radicalism: The government is telling insurance companies that they must spend most of the money they take in on actual health care for the people and businesses paying the premiums.
If the insurers spend below those levels, they have to refund the difference. According to Health and Human Services, 12.8 million Americans will get $1.1 billion in rebates. That comes to an average rebate of $151 per household. In 12 states, the rebates will average $300 or more.
Here's your chance, conservatives. Big, bad government is forcing those nice insurance companies to give people a break. From what you say, you see this as socialism, a case of the heavy hand of Washington meddling with the right of contract. You cannot possibly keep this money. So stand up for those oppressed insurers and give them their rebates back!
As for the waivers on welfare, Romney's position is dispiriting. Here's a former governorwhose Massachusetts health-care plan - the one that resembles Obamacare - was made possible by federal waivers; who, like other governors, wanted flexibility to do welfare reform his way; and who has said he would roll back Obamacare through the waiver process he now assails. He's turning away from what he claims to believe about state-level innovation for the sake of a cheap and misleading campaign point.
I'd also be curious to know whether Romney got a rebate on his health insurance premiums courtesy of Obamacare and whether he plans to return it. But given his attitude toward disclosure, we'll probably never find out.
ejdionne@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1379 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Regional Edition
U.S. racks up wins over China, but spoils are uncertain
BYLINE: Howard Schneider
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A11
LENGTH: 1385 words
The United States has won an impressive string of victories against China at the World Trade Organization in the past few years but U.S. companies have seen only limited benefits, according to a review of the cases and interviews with analysts and officials familiar with them.
U.S. challenges, for example, have led to the repeal of Chinese import tariffs on American-made auto parts. But by the time the United States prevailed, China was well on its way - with the help of the protective tariffs - to developing its own industry for manufacturing engines, transmissions and other components, say U.S. auto industry officials. The repeal did little to stem the long-term movement of auto-parts work from the United States to China.
Another WTO case challenging Chinese restrictions on U.S. film exports led to a partial opening of China's market. But China was able to maintain strict limits on how many major movie releases can be shown there each year, and studio box-office receipts are capped far below levels that prevail in the United States and other major markets.
The Obama administration has put enforcement of trade agreements at the heart of its approach toward China, the world's second-largest economy and an aggressive economic competitor. The Geneva-based WTO, which oversees the world's major trade treaties, is central to that effort.
The WTO offers a neutral forum where a country can call out another for cheating. This was supposed to help keep nations honest when they trade with one another, fostering freer and fairer commerce and fueling economic growth all around. For the United States, the WTO was meant, in part, to help it navigate a thicket of economic challenges from China and other rapidly developing countries.
While President Obama and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney have been swapping accusations over who is tougher in tackling Chinese economic policies, there is more to the debate than scoring political points. The shared concerns over Chinese competition point out the limits of the WTO. Over the decade since China joined the organization, it has become increasingly clear that it is a flawed tool for prying open China's massive market to American exports.
Major sections of the Chinese market, for example, remain out of the WTO's reach. China was allowed to join the organization in late 2001 without opening its government procurement to foreign companies, and it promised to negotiate a deal on this issue in the future. But China has yet to make an offer that the United States and other WTO members will accept.
In other areas of the economy, the Obama administration, like the George W. Bush administration, has proved adept at mounting successful challenges. Of 14 complaints brought by the United States against China, 11 have essentially prevailed. Three cases are pending. China has won three cases it brought against the United States and lost a fourth.
But winning in the courtroom is often only the start of the battle. What typically follows are negotiations between the two sides that determine what changes the losing side will make in its trade practices. Early cases won discrete benefits for the United States - such as the lifting of tax preferences that China offered its local companies - but later cases have bogged down in settlement talks.
The United States recently won a case involving restrictions on the activities of U.S. credit-card companies in China. Now, the matter is probably headed to appeal and protracted negotiations, during which time China's homegrown electronic-payments giant, China UnionPay, can continue solidifying the dominant market position it has built under state protection.
A WTO case brought in 2007 against China's lax intellectual-property laws was won by the United States two years later. But Lael Brainard, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, said recently that theft of U.S. intellectual property in China remains "rampant."
The WTO battle over American film exports also began in 2007 and was won by the United States in 2009. But it was only during this year's visit by incoming Chinese leader Xi Jinping that a settlement was concluded.
Greg Frazier, executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, acknowledged the limits of that deal. Bumping the number of imported first-run films from 20 to 34 per year was hardly a revolution. The increase in studio box-office receipts from 13 percent to 25 percent still falls short of the typical 50-50 split. To get the agreement, the United States also had to agree to leave the government's China Film Group as the country's sole film importer.
But U.S. business officials say they accept that progress with China will always be grudgingly step by step.
"The view was, use the WTO to crack restrictions, which had been in place for 20 years, and try to set up a dynamic that will feed into commercial changes that are taking place," Frazier said. "People look at this market, and they want to transform it. It's not in the cards. You do what is politically feasible."
Some U.S. executives say American companies should stay engaged in China and cut deals as they can.
"China is going to be the world's biggest economy, and U.S. companies have to figure out how to do business there," said John G. Rice, General Electric's vice chairman.
Experts say it is unlikely that WTO enforcement will broadly change China's policies. The Chinese "think they have a pretty good model, and they don't see the WTO as an institution that can make major changes," said Gary Hufbauer, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who follows U.S.-China economic relations. "Modest changes. Minor changes. But not major systemic change."
Obama administration officials say they hope recent WTO cases will hit at the core of China's industrial policy. That means, for example, challenging China's export restrictions on rare-earth minerals critical to high-tech manufacturing, as well as other industrial raw materials. U.S. officials say they hope persistence - increasing the number and complexity of cases filed in Geneva - will pay off and prompt China's policymakers to avoid adopting trade measures that they know will be successfully challenged.
"There has been a seminal shift under this administration in how the United States enforces trade agreements with respect to China and other countries," said Timothy Reif, general counsel at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. "Our role is to make clear that if they are going to engage in inconsistencies, we will fight it and, when necessary, litigate it."
Reif has hired three Mandarin-proficient lawyers over the past year to work with Katherine Tai, the office's chief counsel for China trade enforcement, and the pace of case filings has increased. The new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center is focusing on China and has drawn in personnel from other agencies. The rare-earths challenge was considered so complex and sensitive, its preparation involved help from the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and intelligence agencies, and extensive deliberations with the White House.
WTO challenges are not the only tool the United States has to try to open China's market. The Commerce Department has imposed dozens of tariffs on Chinese products considered unfairly priced or subsidized. The United States also holds regular high-level talks with China to push trade and economic issues.
But in the 10 years since China joined the WTO, the group has become the venue for a steady series of trade battles.
China was quick to settle the first cases brought against it, said Henry Gao of the Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade, but is now fighting back more aggressively and negotiating tougher when it loses.
The country has sent promising young lawyers to programs such as Georgetown University's Institute of International Economic Law, begun sending more participants to world trade forums and panels, and expanded Chinese organizations such as the Shanghai Institute to press its viewpoint.
The Chinese "don't like litigation, and there was a lack of experience with the WTO system" in the early years, Gao said. But the country recognizes that the WTO is one field in "the competition for economic supremacy."
schneiderh@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1380 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
Conservatives blast Romney on health care
BYLINE: Rosalind S. Helderman;Aaron Blake
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 892 words
Mitt Romney drew new fire from his conservative allies on a familiar topic Wednesday - health-care reform - as his spokeswoman offered unusual praisehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-team-moves-to-take-credit-for-romneycare/2012/08/08/c371e216-e17b-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_blog.htmlfor his efforts on the issue as Massachusetts governor.
In an interview with Fox News Channel on Wednesday, Andrea Saul invoked Massachusetts's expansion of health coverage as a defense to a harsh new ad funded by a super PAC supporting President Obama. In the spot, a former steelworker whose plant was closed by Bain Capital blames Romney, who co-founded the firm, for his family's loss of health insurance and his wife's subsequent death from cancer.
"To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health-care plan, they would have had health care," Saul said in the interview. "There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama's economy."
The comments were unusual for a campaign that has typically steered clear of the 2006 Massachusetts overhaul, sensitive to conservatives' concerns that the program too closely mimics the Democratic health-care law they are determined to undo.
At an event in Iowa on Wednesday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee offered his Massachusetts experience to show that he is an expert on health-care reform.
"We've got to do some reforms in health care, and I have some experience doing that, as you know," he told a crowd, after receiving a standing ovation for repeating his promise to repeal Obama's law.
Romney has always maintained that although his reform efforts worked for Massachusetts, the federal government should not force a similar solution on the nation.
He has said that on his first day as president, he would sign an executive order offering states a waiver to opt out of the law and would sign any repeal legislation passed by Congress.
Although he has never disavowed the Massachusetts effort, he has often appeared hesitant to discuss the program, which drew harsh criticism from his Republican rivals during the presidential primaries. The Massachusetts and federal programs both include a core requirement that participants buy medical insurance or pay a fee.
Early in the primary contest, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty chided that the two programs were so similar, they could be called "Obamneycare." Former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) once said that Romney's efforts in Massachusetts made him the worst possible Republican to face Obama.
Along those lines, the twin moments of praise Wednesday for the Massachusetts program elicited immediate howls of protest from conservatives. After all, they said, if Romney believes that expanding health coverage through a government program was a positive development for Massachusetts residents, couldn't Democrats argue that other Americans should receive similar protections?
"Andrea Saul's appearance on Fox was a potential gold mine for Obama supporters," conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday. "They can say, 'Romneycare was the basis for our health care.' "
Conservative commentator Erick Erickson called Saul's remark an "an unforced error of monumental idiocy" that revived conservative wariness of Romney.
"Consider the scab picked, the wound opened and the distrust trickling out again," he wrote on RedState.com.
In the Priorities USA super PAC ad to which Saul was responding, Joe Soptic, a former employee at GST Steel in Kansas City, Mo., says he no longer had health insurance after losing his job at the company. Without coverage, Soptic's wife, Ilyona "Ranae" Soptic, died of cancer. But the ad does not note that Romney had left Bain by the time GST Steel declared bankruptcy in 2001. And Soptic's wife died in 2006, five years after the plant closed.
"This ad just shows the depths to which President Obama and his allies will go to smear Mitt Romney," Saul said in the Fox interview.
The Romney team has called on the Obama campaign to disavow the ad by the independent group. On Wednesday, it cried foul when several Obama campaign aides said they were unfamiliar with Joe Soptic's history, even though the former steelworker had told his story during an Obama conference call in May.
Some conservatives on Wednesday said praise for the Massachusetts program did little to blunt their confidence that Romney would work to end the federal program if elected.
"The key policy here is overturning the president's health-care legislation. And on that, Governor Romney has been crystal clear," said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a tea-party-affiliated group that has led protests against the law.
Independent pollster Brad Corker said it might be risky but astute for Romney to find new ways to cast his Massachusetts health-care experience, once considered the signature achievement of his time in office.
Conservatives, he argued, dislike Obama's approach so deeply that they are unlikely to stay home on Election Day.
But independent voters might be impressed to hear that Romney has given serious thought to addressing flaws in the health-care system beyond criticizing Obama.
"It would help blunt the 'Romney wants to take away your health care' argument," he said.
heldermanr@washpost.com
blakea@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1381 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Regional Edition
BYLINE: Greg Sargent
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A15
LENGTH: 429 words
Ad featuring woman's death dramatizes larger debate
Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting President Obama, released a much-discussed ad that implies Bain Capital is to blame for the death of the wife of a laid-off steelworker. I think the ad goes too far, given that Joe Soptic's wife died five years after Bain closed his plant and that she had - though later lost - her own health insurance - for a time - after he lost his job. It's true that uninsured people are less likely to survive cancer. But the circumstances of her illness are so unclear, even in Mr. Soptic's telling, that there is no way to determine whether she would have died if he hadn't been fired.
The ad doesn't say outright that Mitt Romney is to blame for this woman's death. It's meant to dramatize that decisions like the one Bain made to lay off Soptic have long-term consequences. But on Wednesday, the Romney camp responded to the ad in a way that makes this whole dust-up important: "If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health-care plan, they would have had health care," spokeswoman Andrea Saul said on Fox News.
Conservatives are apoplectic. They think this has given the Obama team a big opening to remake its case about Obamacare - and they're right. The Romney campaign seems to be claiming that government-established universal health care is the answer to what to do about people who lack insurance. That is Obama's argument for Obamacare. The Romney team will argue that it favors only state-based insurance mandates to achieve universal coverage. That's true. But this debate is occurring in the context of a presidential race, and something approaching universal health care is the law of the land. As president, however, Romney would take it away from people like the Soptics without specifying what he would replace it with.
Even if this ad makes unsupportable charges, and even if you think there's nothing objectionable about Bain's conduct, the ad dramatizes a larger story. There is a straightforward difference of opinion between the presidential candidates over the degree to which the federal government should intervene to protect people like Ms. Soptic. Obama believes in aggressive federal action to cushion the blow of market outcomes like the one that hit the Soptics with such force. Romney - even though his campaign has said universal health care is the right answer in cases like Ms. Soptic's - is promising to roll back government protections for such families. Whatever you think of the ad, that's the more important argument to be having.
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1382 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Met 2 Edition
Scotts Miracle-Gro goes out on a limb with political donation
BYLINE: T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 811 words
In an election year filled with secret campaign money, the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has made the unlikely choice to go public with a big political donation.
The Ohio-based company, familiar as the producer of a ubiquitous plant fertilizer, is now a political player, donating $200,000 in June to the Restore Our Future super PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
That makes Miracle-Gro among the first public companies with well-known consumer brands to publicly enter the new world of campaign funding. That world has been reshaped by the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed direct corporate spending on election campaigns.
Spending by interest groups active in the presidential race has risen dramatically as a result of that landmark ruling. But the vast majority of donors that have been publicly disclosed are rich individuals and private companies that don't have much to lose by aligning with a political party because they don't mass-market brand products to consumers who might disagree with the contributions.
At the time of the Supreme Court's decision, Democrats and their allies warned that it could lead to large companies with billions in quarterly profits unleashing their massive bank accounts on political campaigns. So far, big public companies have been shy about taking advantage of the looser restrictions. Many have decided not to donate, while others have given to groups that are not required to disclose their donors.
James Hagedorn, Miracle-Gro's chairman and chief executive, made the choice to support Romney with company funds, said Jim King, a senior vice president at the company. The company's lobbyists presented Hagedorn with options for contributing in the presidential race, including ways to keep the company's name private.
"His point of view was, 'If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it in the light of day,' " said King, who spoke for the company.
The company would benefit from a Romney presidency, King said, citing the Republican's policies on corporate tax reform, business regulation and federal spending, and the belief that Romney could revive a weak economy.
Before new laws were passed in 2003, big companies routinely made large donations to the political parties.
The current corporate hesitancy to donate publicly stems in part from the experience of Target Corp. in 2010. After donating to support a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who opposed gay marriage, Target faced a nationwide boycott.
Another controversy has underscored the risk: The fast-food chain Chick-fil-A has been targeted with protests in recent weeks for comments by its chief executive and donations it made to groups opposing gay marriage.
The Miracle-Gro donation has drawn little attention, but an unscientific sampling of shoppers at a District garden store recently pointed to the potential to alienate at least some consumers.
"It's a plant fertilizer - it's not for growing political parties," said Joan Harris, of Georgetown.
Another customer, graduate student Alanna Tievsky, said she would likely "think twice" in the future about buying the fertilizer. "If there were two options and they were the same price, I would definitely buy the other one," said Tievsky, who said she supports President Obama for reelection.
King said the company anticipated some backlash but thought the benefits outweighed the risk. "Just as many people applaud you and say 'I'm going to buy your products for life,' " King said.
Hagedorn's father, Horace, a Madison Avenue marketing genius, created Miracle-Gro and founded the company in 1950. Together with his siblings, James Hagedorn owns 30 percent of the company, giving him a tight hold on power.
Perhaps the biggest reason why Miracle-Gro made the donation may be Hagedorn himself. A former F-16 fighter pilot known for making analogies to war fighting, Hagedorn has shown a willingness to take controversial stances, such as firing workers who won't agree to quit smoking as part of a plan to cut health-care costs.
Although he lives in New York, Hagedorn has been more involved in Ohio politics. He is a registered Republican who broke with the party to endorse former Ohio governor Ted Strickland (D) in his 2010 reelection race, taping a campaign commercial for him.
"Why would Jim Hagedorn and Republicans support a Democrat?" Hagedorn says in the ad. "Ted Strickland understands the issues that business people deal with."
Recently, Hagedorn has been proving his Republican bona fides in the wake of Strickland's defeat. Last year he started raising money to help the winner of the governor's race, John Kasich, pass a budget.
Hagedorn has met Romney twice, once for a one-on-one meeting during the Republican primary and again at a fundraiser where he made a $2,500 personal donation to the candidate.
farnamt@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1383 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
For anti-Romney ads, Democrats call Joe the Steelworker
BYLINE: Nia-Malika Henderson
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 852 words
In 2008, it was Joe the Plumber. This year, it's Joe the Steelworker.
Joe Soptic, 62, has become a go-to figure for supporters of President Obama, appearing this week in his second campaign ad talking about being laid off from a Kansas City, Mo., steel plant that was taken over by Bain Capital in 1993.
In the ad, released Tuesday by the super PAC Priorities USA and titled "Understands," Soptic makes his most heated claim to date, suggesting a link between his wife's death five years ago and the Bain takeover.
"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care, and my family lost their health care," Soptic says in the minute-long spot. "And a short time after that, my wife became ill . . . she passed away in 22 days."
On Wednesday, Obama advisers distanced themselves from the former steelworker and the most recent ad, saying they were unaware of the details of Soptic's account about his wife. "We don't have any knowledge of the story of the family," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Air Force One.
But in addition to running its own ad with Soptic, the Obama campaign featured him in a conference call with reporters in May, when he shared his story.
Republicans pounced on the discrepancy. "Still no knowledge, Jen?" a news release from the Republican National Committee taunted after reports of the conference call surfaced.
Bain's initial investment in Soptic's steel company was made under the leadership of Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The company took on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt while paying Bain investors millions in dividends. But Romney was no longer actively managing Bain when the steel company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001 and closed its Kansas City plant, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs and their health insurance, as well as part of their pensions.
When Ilyona "Ranae" Soptic died in 2006, Romney was governor of Massachusetts.
Campaigns have long sought regular people to carry their messages to voters, betting that personal stories and plain speaking are more effective than the poll-driven talking points of the candidates and their aides. Romney has used entrepreneurs flashing calloused hands and touting their successful businesses to suggest that Obama doesn't understand free enterprise. Democrats have featured workers such as Soptic, who say they lost their livelihoods because of Romney, to suggest that the Republican's approach to business gutted companiesand communities rather than creating jobs.
Although the ads typically last a minute or so, the lives and stories that inspire them are more complicated. For example, five years passed between the time Soptic lost his job as a steelworker and his wife's death, yet the ad seems to compress the timing and suggests a correlation.
Soptic, a lifelong Democrat and union member, said an Internet search led Democratic groups to his story, first reported in local newspapers several years ago.
"This all started back in December. They wanted to know how our lives have changed since the plant closed and how I felt," he said in an interview Tuesday.
Soptic, who appeared in Obama's first television ad about Romney's record at Bain in May, continued: "I think the reason they keep coming back to me is because of everything that has happened in our life since the plant closed."
As a steelworker, Soptic was part of a crew that removed slag debris from underneath furnaces used in the steelmaking process. His last day on the job came in March 2001, after GS Industries filed for bankruptcy.
"It was quite a culture shock for all of us," said Soptic, who was earning $46,000 a year. "It took me six months to find a job."
He was hired as a school custodian, making about $15,000 a year.
Soptic cast himself as a spokesman for his fellow crew members, who still get together once a month for breakfast. "Everyone is quite proud because the story had to be told," he said.
Soptic said Priorities USA, the super PAC supporting Obama, contacted him about a week ago to alert him to the latest ad, which was partially shot in his home and at the union hall. In it, he talks about the loss of his wife of 30 years.
The ad shows Soptic, the father of a grown daughter, frozen in time as a grieving widower and a bitter former steelworker struggling to make ends meet. Yet today, that is only part of his story. With his pension and custodial salary, he makes about $46,000, which is what he made in 2001 when he lost his job.
He also has a new wife - his high school sweetheart from 42 years ago.
"It all had a happy ending," Soptic told The Washington Post.
He declined to comment on whether he thinks Romney is to blame for his first wife's death, as the ad seems to suggest. Referring to his former employer, he said, "They made certain promises, and I feel like if they did fulfill those promises, she would have had health insurance."
CNN reportedthat Ilyona Soptic had health insurance through her employer when her husband lost his job. But she was not employed and no longer had coverage by the time her end-stage cancer was diagnosed.
hendersonn@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1384 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 8, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Ex-Factory Worker Links Losses to Bain
BYLINE: By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; AD WATCH; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 529 words
Priorities USA Action, a ''super PAC'' supporting President Obama, released an advertisement on Tuesday suggesting that Mitt Romney's actions at Bain Capital indirectly contributed to a woman's death.ON SCREEN Joe Soptic, a former worker at GST Steel in Kansas City, Mo., speaks into the camera, with shots of a shuttered factory interspersed.
THE SCRIPT Mr. Soptic says: ''I don't think Mitt Romney understands what he's done to people's lives by closing the plant. I don't think he realizes that people's lives completely changed. When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care, and my family lost their health care. And a short time after that, my wife became ill.
''I don't know how long she was sick, and I think maybe she didn't say anything because she knew that we couldn't afford the insurance. And then one day she became ill, and I took her up to the Jackson County Hospital and admitted her for pneumonia. And that's when they found the cancer, and by then it was Stage Four. It was ... there was nothing they could do for her. And she passed away in 22 days.
''I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned.''
ACCURACY In the ad, Mr. Soptic says his wife became ill ''a short time after'' his family lost insurance. But Mr. Soptic lost his job at GST in 2001, and his wife died in 2006. She was taken to a hospital where doctors found signs of ''very advanced cancer'' and died two weeks later, according to The Kansas City Star.
At the time, Mr. Soptic was employed as a custodian for $24,000 a year -- about one-third of his former salary -- but his health plan did not cover his wife, according to an article in January by Reuters. That article reported that when his wife began to lose weight, Mr. Soptic said he ''tried to get her to the doctor, and she wouldn't go.''
Efforts to reach Mr. Soptic were unsuccessful. CNN reported that he said his wife had insurance through her employer until 2002 or 2003, when she left her job because of an injury.
The Romney campaign issued a statement that called the ad ''dishonest'' and ''contemptible,'' but did not challenge how Mr. Soptic lost his insurance.
The ad fails to mention other important context. The plant's parent company struggled before Bain bought it, and it is not clear whether the plant would have otherwise remained open until 2001. Other steel manufacturers went bankrupt in the same period.
While Mr. Romney, who ran Bain Capital, has taken responsibility for its initial investment in GST Steel, a campaign official said he had no influence or role in the decision to close the plant in February 2001. The official said Mr. Romney ''wasn't involved in any of the investment or management decisions at Bain Capital after February 1999,'' when he went on leave to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. Mr. Romney technically retained control of Bain through August 2001, when he formally transferred his shares of Bain's management corporation to the other Bain partners.
SCORECARD The super PAC ad compresses time in a way that links the closing of the GST plant with Mrs. Soptic's fatal illness. RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/ex-factory-worker-links-losses-to-bain.html
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO (PHOTOGRAPH BY PRIORITIES USA)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1385 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 8, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Romney Presses Obama On Work in Welfare Law
BYLINE: By TRIP GABRIEL; Michael D. Shear contributed reporting from New York, and Peter Baker from Washington.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 842 words
ELK GROVE VILLAGE, Ill. -- Mitt Romney accused President Obama on Tuesday of gutting one of the signature bipartisan accomplishments of the recent political era: the overhaul of welfare policy.Mr. Romney, taking up criticism that has gripped conservatives for the last few weeks, attacked a directive by the Obama administration that Republicans say does an end run around the welfare law, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, that is widely credited with reducing government dependency.
''I hope you understand,'' Mr. Romney said while campaigning here, ''President Obama in this last few days has tried to reverse that accomplishment by taking the work requirement out of welfare.''
''If I'm president,'' he added, ''I'll put work back in welfare.''
The attack drew an all-out denial from the White House and the Obama campaign, which accused Mr. Romney of warping the issue and, not least, of hypocrisy because, as Massachusetts governor, he urged similar flexibility in the federal law.
The fierce exchange reflected the intense competition for working- and middle-class voters, and recalls the vitriolic debates of the 1990s, which centered on fairness, government dependency and irresponsibility. And in seizing on welfare, a theme that aides said Mr. Romney would continue to amplify in the coming days, he invoked Mr. Clinton, who worked with Republicans to pass welfare reform, as a bipartisan figure -- an implicit contrast with Mr. Obama, whom Republicans portray as a staunch big government liberal.
In a memo released Tuesday, Mr. Romney's policy director, Lanhee Chen, said the administration had delivered ''a kick in the gut to the millions of hard-working middle-class taxpayers struggling in today's economy.''
The speech was part of a coordinated assault with the Republican National Committee, which sounded the theme in a television ad on Tuesday. ''Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job,'' the ad's narrator says. ''They just send you your welfare check.''
That claim seemed a stretch even by the standards of 30-second political ads. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, which issued the welfare initiative in a memo on July 12, wrote later in the month that to qualify a state must ''move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state's past performance.''
The federal welfare program created in 1996, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, limits how long families can receive benefits and requires recipients to work or prepare for work. Instead of a federal entitlement, the money is distributed by states, whose feet are held to the fire by Washington in order to receive the financing.
The change led to sharply reduced welfare rolls.
In allowing states to seek waivers from features of the work requirements, the administration said it was responding to their requests to streamline bureaucracy.
''Many states report that their caseworkers are spending more time complying with federal-documentation requirements than helping parents find jobs,'' George Sheldon, an acting assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote in a blog post explaining the ruling.
But conservative critics, including Speaker John A. Boehner and the Heritage Foundation, pounced on the new rules, which they said would lead to redefining ''work'' to include activities like hula dancing and attending weight-loss programs.
Of five states that initially requested or considered waivers, two have Republican governors, Utah and Nevada, the administration said.
Mary-Sarah Kinner, a spokeswoman for Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, said the governor had sought discussions with the federal government about waivers for Nevada's welfare program. In a letter to the federal government, the head of the state's office of health and human services department said that he was ''very interested in working with your staff to explore program waivers.''
But Ms. Kinner, using the language of Mr. Romney's attacks, said in a statement that Mr. Sandoval would never seek a ''request to weaken work requirements.''
On the stump here, Mr. Romney referred to his experience as Massachusetts governor, saying he fought ''time and time again'' against the Democratic Legislature that sought to weaken work requirements for welfare recipients.
But Mr. Romney was also one of 29 Republican governors who urged the federal government in 2005 to allow waivers granting more flexibility for their state welfare programs.
Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, assailed Mr. Romney for supporting, as governor of Massachusetts, changes in the law that would have weakened it. ''Hypocrisy knows no bounds,'' Mr. Carney said.
Asked about the charge of hypocrisy, Mr. Romney told Fox News that he was ''all in favor for flexibility for states.''
''My focus is on increasing work requirements, not eliminating them,'' he added, ''and what the president is doing is saying that we are going to take out the requirement for work. It is a big mistake.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/romney-accuses-obama-of-taking-work-out-of-welfare-law.html
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Mitt Romney, in a campaign appearance on Tuesday, accused the president of gutting the bipartisan overhaul of welfare policy. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ERIC THAYER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1386 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 8, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
Polls Underline Stubborn Splits In 3 Key States
BYLINE: By JIM RUTENBERG and ALLISON KOPICKI; Marina Stefan and Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1116 words
For all of the Democratic attacks painting Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch elitist who will help the rich at the expense of the middle class, he is maintaining the traditional -- and sizable -- Republican advantage among a politically vital constituency, white working-class voters in the states most likely to decide the presidential election.And despite Republican efforts to use the weak economy to drive a wedge between President Obama and women on Election Day, the president is holding on to their crucial support in most battleground states.
Those findings, contained in the latest batch of Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News swing state polls, highlight the stubborn divisions of this year's presidential race among two of the most important voting groups in the most hotly contested states.
But they also help explain the intense efforts of the two campaigns to alter the balance in both groups, which together will go a long way toward determining the outcome.
Mr. Obama's goal is to keep Mr. Romney from running up huge margins among white working-class voters -- defined as those without college degrees and with household incomes of $30,000 to $100,000 -- who could give him the edge.
New results from surveys over the past week in Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin, combined with surveys last week in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, show that Mr. Romney so far appears to be holding his own with that group, but running no stronger than Senator John McCain did four years ago.
Similarly, Mr. Romney is trying to peel off as many female voters as possible from Mr. Obama's electoral coalition, hoping to offset the president's advantages among single and nonwhite women by appealing to married and white women with a message about economic security and pocketbook issues.
But while the poll suggests that Mr. Romney is making inroads among women in Colorado, where he is also showing strength against Mr. Obama by several other measures, support for Mr. Obama among women has otherwise held up in the battleground states. As a result, Mr. Obama has so far been able to stave off bigger losses in the most hotly contested states, in particular among independents, who are divided in Colorado and Wisconsin and supporting Mr. Romney in Virginia, and white men, who are supporting Mr. Romney by double digits over the president in all three states.
Far more than national polls, which can track the mood of the electorate only as a whole, the results in the state-by-state polls provide a detailed snapshot of the race where it matters most, in geography and demography. They also help explain why both the Obama and Romney campaigns are focusing so much of their time and money on messages intended to resonate with such specific groups in such specific places.
The latest polls underscore just how tight the race continues to be, with the candidates running closely in Virginia and Colorado and Mr. Obama leading in Wisconsin, though not by his double-digit margin of victory in 2008. Mr. Obama won all three states in 2008.
Mr. Obama is struggling because of the economy and facing new challenges in Colorado, where his support among white men has fallen considerably from where it was in exit polls there in 2008.
But Mr. Romney is also struggling to connect with middle-class voters. And about half of voters in each of the three states said presidential candidates should release several years of tax returns. (Mr. Romney has so far declined to release more than two years of returns amid calls by Democrats and even Republicans for more.)
Combined with the surveys last week in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the new state polls paint a portrait of an electorate that has largely made up its mind but sees both candidates as having vulnerabilities -- giving each side opportunities to exploit.
In all three states, more voters said that Mr. Obama's policies would hurt their personal finances if he were elected to a second term than said they would help.
Mr. Romney is running ads in Virginia and Colorado featuring the owner of a metal fabricating business who asserts Mr. Obama is undermining him; the campaign has named his coming bus tour ''The Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class.''
Intent on holding support among women, Mr. Obama is showing commercials calling Mr. Romney both ''out of touch'' on women's health and a threat to abortion rights; on Monday, Mr. Obama called Mr. Romney ''Romney Hood,'' saying his tax plans would take from the middle class to give to the rich.
Still, in Wisconsin, Mr. Romney led Mr. Obama by 14 percentage points among white voters who did not graduate from college and have household incomes of $30,000 to $100,000; he led by 15 percentage points among these voters in Colorado and by 31 percentage points in Virginia.
But more voters over all in the three states said Mr. Obama cares about their needs and problems than said the same about Mr. Romney.
''Romney seems to be in touch only with the ultra-wealthy,'' said Deb Bracken, of Broomfield, Colo., a registered nurse who identified herself in a follow-up interview as an independent voter. ''And at least Obama has a clue about women's issues.''
Mr. Obama led among women by 8 points in Colorado, by 14 points in Virginia and by 23 points in Wisconsin. But nearly 4 in 10 voters in each state said the national economy was getting worse.
''There are a lot of things that Obama did that I don't agree with, like the bailouts,'' said Kelly Blankenship, 27, a logger from Dublin, Va., who said he was an independent voter. ''My job is another reason I don't care for him. The timber company I work for lost a lot of jobs because of the green initiative.''
Even as Mr. Obama lagged among men like Mr. Blankenship in Virginia, the Quinnipiac/Times/CBS News poll found a four-point edge for him in the state. That was within the poll's margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points on each candidate.
Mr. Romney holds a five-point advantage in Colorado, also within the poll's margin of sampling error. Mr. Obama's lead in Wisconsin of 6 percentage points was statistically significant, though he won the state by roughly 14 percentage points in 2008.
In all three states -- as well as in Pennsylvania and Ohio in last week's Quinnipiac/Times/CBS News polls -- women said Mr. Obama would do a better job than Mr. Romney would on health care. White working-class voters in all six states surveyed in the last two sets of polls said they believed Mr. Romney would do a better job on the economy.
''Romney has experience in running a big business, and the country is definitely a big business,'' said Scott Coble of Denver, a machine operator in a steel supply company and an independent.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/polls-see-sharp-divide-in-3-swing-states.html
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: CHARTS: The candidates
The economy
Gun control laws (Based on telephone interviews conducted July 31-Aug. 6 with 1,463 likely voters in Colorado, 1,412 likely voters in Virginia, and 1,428 likely voters in Wisconsin. Those with no opinion are not shown.) (A12)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1387 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
August 8, 2012 Wednesday
Fact-Checking Is Not Enough
BYLINE: ROSS DOUTHAT
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 936 words
HIGHLIGHT: Media scouring of political ads can be helpful, but we have to count on voters' common sense too.
The speaker is a Midwestern Everyman: White, balding, deep in middle age, with hollows around his eyes. He sits at a kitchen table, nursing a cup of coffee, talking about what happened after Bain Capital closed down his steel plant in 2001. He lost his job; his family lost its health insurance. His wife felt lousy but didn't go to the doctor, to spare the family worry and expense. When she finally ended up in the hospital, the diagnosis was cancer. She had 22 days to live.
"I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone," the man says at the end. "And furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned."
That advertisement, paid for by the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA, was released on Tuesday morning. By midday the political press had subjected it to a fact-check and reported that not only was Romney no longer in charge of day-to-day decisions at Bain by the time the steel plant closed down, but the man's wife - his name is Joe Soptic, hers was Ranae - actually died in 2006, nearly five years after the original layoff.
By the evening the debunking had gone further. CNN contacted Soptic himself for comment, and the former steelworker acknowledged that his wife had actually continued to have insurance of her own after he was laid off, and only lost her coverage more than a year later, when she left her own job because of an injury. What the ad had portrayed as cause-and-effect - Romney fired, Ranae Soptic died - was a tenuous-to-nonexistent connection.
It is possible, just possible, that the speed and scope of this debunking has been sufficient to thoroughly blunt the advertisement's reach, or perhaps even knock it out of circulation completely. If so, the ad-makers working for Priorities USA will have achieved an extraordinarily rare feat: They will have created an attack ad so preposterous that it can be swatted down by media fact-checkers.
This almost never happens. Instead, even when they're crossing lines and peddling inaccuracies, the makers of negative ads generally welcome criticism from the press, because criticism equals coverage, and even critical coverage expands the advertisement's reach.
Reporters understand how this process works, but they've usually been helpless to do anything about it. The first iconic negative ad of the television era, Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" spot, aired only once in 1964, but its implied message - that Barry Goldwater would take the United States into a global thermonuclear war - was only amplified by the media coverage of the controversy over its legitimacy and tone.
The same thing happened a generation later, when journalistic watchdogs parsed Republican ads on crime and welfare and affirmative action for racism and crypto-racist appeals. These efforts made TV spots like the 1988 Willie Horton ad and Jesse Helms's 1990 "white-hands" ad infamous among liberals, but they didn't prevent them from being devastatingly effective with the voting public.
In the internet era, the number of would-be watchdogs and fact-checking teams has proliferated, but the same problems remain. It isn't just that even hostile media coverage tends to just widen an attack ad's audience. It's also that the interpretation of advertisements often has more in common with cultural criticism than it does with rigorous magazine fact-checking, which makes it hard for even the most down-the-middle reporter to define what counts as fair.
Sometimes this manifests itself in straightforward political bias. In a lengthy critique of "non-partisan" outlets like Politifact last winter, The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway argued persuasively that their ostensibly neutral analysis often feels more "a rearguard action to keep inconvenient truths" - mostly the ones that favor conservatives - "out of the conversation."
But even when outright bias doesn't intrude, the problem of interpretation remains. Reporters can check the date of Ranae Soptic's death and the details of her coverage, but there's no purely disinterested answer to the question of whether a businessman can be blamed for a layoff's human toll, any more than there was a purely factual answer to the question of whether it was racist to show Willie Horton's mug shot in 1988.
This means that with rare exceptions, viewers and voters, not reporters and pundits, will always get the final say on whether a particular advertisement crosses a line.
And the press needs to learn to trust them with it. Negative ads will always be feature of American politics, and voters have generally shown good judgment about what counts as a legitimate issue and what doesn't.
The Willie Horton ad worked, for instance, because it was clearly linked to Dukakis's own policy positions, and to the then-pressing issue of liberalism's abject failure to deal with rising crime rates. The late-in-the-game ads attempting to tie Barack Obama to the former Weatherman Bill Ayers in 2008, on the other hand, fell flat because they weren't tied to any of the major issues at stake in the campaign.
Even before its details were debunked, my instinct was that the anti-Romney cancer spot fell squarely into the latter category - not because jobs and health care don't matter in 2012, but because there's only so far over the top you can go before voters tune you out.
If I'm right, conservatives should save their outrage: Even if the media's fact-checkers can't quite close the book on this particular exercise in demagoguery, the wisdom of the American people will finish what they started.
Battle of the Placards
Embracing Sheldon Adelson
Britain or Bust
The Palin Effect
Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Multicultural Future
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1388 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 8, 2012 Wednesday
Romney Aide Touts Health Care Reform
BYLINE: TRIP GABRIEL
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 380 words
HIGHLIGHT: The comments of a spokeswoman for Mitt Romney draw criticism from conservatives.
A principal message-maker of the Romney campaign drew criticism from conservative circles on Wednesday by suggesting that if a laid-off steel worker in an anti-Romney ad had lived in Massachusetts, he would have had health insurance and his wife might still be alive.
Andrea Saul, Mr. Romney's press secretary, meant to undermine a harsh ad by a "super PAC" supporting President Obama in which a man recounts how he his wife died from advanced cancer, implying the couple could not afford insurance because he had lost his job due to a plant shutdown tied to Bain Capital.
"To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care," Ms. Saul said on Fox News. "There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President Obama's economy."
Ms. Saul said the ad was "despicable" and a "smear" against Mr. Romney in trying to link the candidate to the woman's death. The steel worker in the ad, Joe Soptic, lost his job when a plant owned by Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mr. Romney co-founded, closed it in 2001. Mr. Soptic's wife died in 2006, shortly after being diagnosed, according to news reports.
The Romney campaign is furious with the ad, not least because Mr. Romney left Bain in 1999 and says he had no operational control after that.
But Ms. Saul's remarks threaten to upstage that message by reminding voters of the link between the president's health care law and Mr. Romney's Massachusetts health reform in 2006. The universal mandate to buy insurance that Mr. Romney promoted helped inspire President Obama's health care overhaul.
Mr. Romney has never repudiated his health care reform, but he has said it was right only for his own state, and he has vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act if elected.
That pledge may be his most potent campaign message - when he repeated it in Iowa on Wednesday it drew the loudest applause of his speech. But reminders of his own role in inspiring Mr. Obama's law could work against him.
A number of conservative commentators were quick to jump on Ms. Saul's remarks. Erick Erickson, the editor of of the conservative website RedState.com, posted to his blog that it could be a "read my lips" moment that alienates grass-roots Republicans.
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1389 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Campaign Stops)
August 8, 2012 Wednesday
The Welfare Gambit
BYLINE: CHARLES M. BLOW
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 733 words
HIGHLIGHT: What's driving Mitt Romney's latest wave of attacks on President Obama?
I smell desperation.
It's one thing when campaign supporters and even surrogates issue scurrilous attacks on their candidate's opponent- both sides have done some of this - but it's another thing altogether when those accusations become a central line of attack stemming from the candidate himself.
Earlier this week, Mitt Romney claimed that President Obama had moved to eliminate the work requirement for welfare recipients.
Romney pushed the point in an ad with the narrator saying:
On July 12, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check, and 'welfare to work' goes back to being plain old welfare.
In person, Romney has repeated this claim over and over.
The only problem is that it's not true. In fact, that assertion is misleading in myriad ways.
Never mind that waivers from aspects of the federal welfare program were requested by the Republican governors of Nevada and Utah.
Never mind that, as Talking Points Memo pointed out Tuesday: "In 2005, Romney and 28 other Republican governors wrote a letter to Congress requesting even more flexibility than Obama has offered, for the purpose of '[e]mpowering states to seek new and innovative solutions to help welfare recipients achieve independence.'"
Never mind that "as governor, Romney offered welfare recipientsfree auto insurance, registration, inspections and memberships in AAA, " as Joe Klein noted, also on Tuesday.
Setting all that aside, the memo in question bore little relation to Romney's provocative claims. It said, in part, that the Department of Health and Human Services:
is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary's willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.
The memo continued:
The Secretary is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment. In providing for these demonstrations, H.H.S. will hold states accountable by requiring both a federally-approved evaluation and interim performance targets that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes.
Furthermore:
States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project.
That's right, the Department of Health and Human Services was granting flexibility to states because it wanted to improve employment outcomes and H.H.S. promised to terminate the waiver if states didn't meet the targets.
It is no wonder, then, that PolitiFact said of Romney's ad:
The ad's claim is not accurate, and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance. Pants on Fire!
"Pants on Fire" is PolitiFact's worst rating.
And the welfare claim comes on the heels of Romney accusing the president of filing a lawsuit "claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state's early voting period." In reality, as Factcheck.org pointed out, "the Democratic lawsuit seeks to restore early voting 'for all Ohio voters,' " because "Ohio's GOP-controlled Legislature in 2011 limited early voting for nonmilitary residents." Politifact said that what voters got from the Romney campaign "is a falsehood." In other words, a lie.
What could push a man to hang his hat on so sharp a nail? Fear, that's what.
As we move into the conventions, the Republican candidate is still down in the polls - two recent surveys have deplorable favorability numbers for Romney. At this point, according to my colleague Nate Silver's blog, FiveThirtyEight, Obama is favored to win in November.
Romney has to find a line of attack that works because there is a creeping feeling beginning to overtake part of the electorate that his candidacy is in trouble. The problem is that these sorts of desperate, baseless attacks only amplify the sense of panic.
Battle of the Placards
Fact-Checking Is Not Enough
Britain or Bust
The Politics of Anything Goes
Connecting With Voters
LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1390 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 9:00 PM EST
Romney's motorcade upstages wedding party;
Romney's motorcade chased by fans
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 690 words
President Obama courts the support of women in Colorado, Romney's motorcade upstages a wedding party, the DCCC adds 13 more "Red-to-Blue" races, and Tommy Thompson proves he can do a lot of push-ups.
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your email inbox every day by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Inside President Obama's campaign team
Romney moves to embrace 'Romneycare'
Why Todd Akin's win gives Democrats hope in Missouri
The death of the Kansas moderate?
House Democrats not riding a 2012 wave, but GOP tide could roll back
#FixCaption contest: We have a winner!
The case against Paul Ryan for vice president
Hillary Clinton keeps on dancing
Quinnipiac: Obama leads in Virginia and Wisconsin; Romney leads in Colorado
Partisans love to hate President Obama and Mitt Romney
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* Stumping in Colorado today, President Obama made a push for support from women voters, telling a Denver crowd, "When it comes to a women's health care coverage (Republicans) want to take us back to the 1950s." Sandra Fluke, the woman who earlier this year was the target of controversial remarks from, introduced the president.
* Wikipedia has locked the pageof potential GOP vice presidential selection Tim Pawlenty, and restricted access to the pages of other possibilities, following Stephen Colbert's suggestion that viewers "make as many edits as possible to your favorite VP contender."
* The presidential race has become quite the '90s party lately. Mitt Romney dispatched Newt Gingrich to argue that Obama is gutting welfare reform. On Tuesday, Bill Clinton gave Obama some backup on the issue.
* According to a pool report, Romney's motorcade in New Jersey passed an Orthodox Jewish wedding party, whereupon "the family abandoned the bride and groom and began chasing Romney's car in the parking lot, waving cameras. The candidate's SUV drove around a corner to a back entrance, followed by at least 10 members of the wedding party who tried to run up to Romney's car."
* A new Marquette Law School poll shows that former governor Tommy Thompson remains the frontrunner ahead of next Tuesday's Wisconsin GOP Senate primary. Thompson leads businessman Eric Hovde, 33 percent to 24 percent, with former congressman Mark Neumann running third, with 21 percent. Oh, and Thompson can also do 50 push-ups in under a minute.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Vice President Joe Biden is stumping in North Carolina and Virginia next week. He'll hit the road from Aug. 13-15, when Obama will be in Iowa.
* Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Steve Israel announced the addition of 13 new "Red to Blue" races House Democrats believe present the most competitive opportunities for challengers and open race candidates. Washington's 1st District race, where Suzan DelBene advanced from a blanket primary on Tuesday, is one of the new additions.
* The GOP-aligned Crossroads GPS released new Senate race TV ads in Virginia, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and Nevada. With one exception, the spots hit Democratic candidates over tax hikes. The one exception? The Nevada ad, which targets Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley's ethics woes.
* Meanwhile, American Crossroads President Steven Law tells CBS News his super PAC will raise $300 million this cycle, roughly two thirds of which will be spent on the presidential race.
* Mark Kelly, the husband of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, has announced his support for Arizona Democratic Senate candidate Richard Carmona.
* Montana Democratic gubernatorial nominee Steve Bullock released his first TV ad. In the 30-second spot, the attorney general appears outdoors with his children and says he "worked across party lines to preserve their right to hunt and fish in places like this." Bullock faces former GOP congressman Rick Hill in one of the cycle's most competitive governor's races.
THE FIX MIX:
Tag, you're it.
With Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1391 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
BYLINE: Laura Vozzella
SECTION: Metro; Pg. B02
LENGTH: 370 words
Election board won't seek criminal probe of mailings
Virginia election officials will not seek a criminal investigation into voter registration forms that a District-based nonprofit mailed to hundreds of dead Virginians, children, noncitizens, pets and others ineligible to vote.
Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in July called for a criminal probe into Voter Participation Center mailings that arrived in hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Virginia mailboxes filled out with the names of ineligible voters.
Charles E. Judd, chairman of the State Board of Elections, said at the time that he did not expect to seek a criminal investigation into the mailings, which the center blamed on a faulty commercial mailing list.
On Monday, the full board officially decided against an inquiry. The board took no vote, but at a meeting on the issue, it declined to ask Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) to investigate.
After hearing from "many folks on both sides of the issue, and with the repeated assurances from VPC that they would not pre-populate the forms, [would] edit their copy so as to not imply that the mailing was sent from SBE, and [would] take additional measure to 'clean' the lists before the mail drop ... the board took no action to officially ask the AG to investigate," Judd said later by e-mail.
The board received more than 750 complaints, mostly from people whose pets or deceased relatives received solicitations to register to vote.
The mailings revived talk of voter fraud in Virginia, a crucial swing state where President Obama and Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, were deadlocked in a recent poll.
Romney's campaign had argued that the mailings threatened the integrity of the presidential election.
The center stressed that it mailed voter registration applications - forms widely available at government offices and online - and not voter ID cards, which can serve as identification at the polls and can be issued only by election officials.
It was the responsibility of recipients and election officials to make sure that no one actually registered with an errant form, the center said.
- Laura Vozzella
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1392 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Romney attacks Obama on welfare reform
BYLINE: Philip Rucker;Bill Turque
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 948 words
ELK GROVE VILLAGE, Ill. - Mitt Romney sought to inject the issue of welfare into the presidential campaign here Tuesday, accusing President Obama of dismantling federal welfare reform and creating a "culture of dependency."
The presumptive Republican nominee charged that the Obama administration has reversed the popular bipartisan welfare reform that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 by allowing waivers for states for welfare work requirements. But the charge drew immediate push back from the Obama campaign, and a direct rebuke of Romney by Clinton himself, who called it false.
Romney's comments come as his campaign makes a play for middle-class voters with a new offensive focused on welfare. Earlier Tuesday, his team rolled out a new 30-second television advertisement, "Right Choice," that says, "Obama guts welfare reform."
The spot is Romney's latest attempt to cast Obama as a big-government liberal and to drive a wedge between the president and the legacy of the popular Clinton. Experts on the law, however, said the changes were consistent with calls from governors for lighter federal regulations and intended to ease the burden of states seeking flexibility.
"That is wrong. If I'm president, I'll put work back in welfare," said Romney, who was campaigning in this suburb just outside Obama's home town of Chicago. He added, "We will end the culture of dependency and restore a culture of good, hard work."
The Department of Health and Human Services announced on July 12 that it would consider requests for waivers from states seeking more latitude in administering Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The centerpiece of the 1996 Clinton legislation, TANF established work requirements and time-limited benefits for recipients. Although caseloads dropped sharply as the economy boomed in the late 1990s, state officials and welfare experts say tougher financial times and overly stringent rules have stalled progress. Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaign's policy director, said in a memo Tuesday that the rules changes were a sign that "not everyone was enthusiastic about welfare reform."
"For instance, a man named Barack Obama took to the floor of the Illinois State Senate to announce his opposition. A devoted believer in old-school, big-government liberalism, Mr. Obama had no interest in embracing the welfare reform package," Chen wrote. "Now as president, with an economy struggling, an election looming, and a dispirited liberal base in need of encouragement, he has decided to turn back the clock."
Obama campaign officials pushed back hard. In a conference call with reporters, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter blasted the ad as "hypocritical and false."
She said the administration agreed to allow states to apply for waivers after hearing from governors, including Republicans Gary Herbert of Utah and Brian Sandoval of Nevada, who sought relief from cumbersome federal requirements and paperwork. To secure a waiver, however, states must show that their welfare programs will increase job placements by 20 percent, Cutter said.
"No plan that undercuts the goal of moving people from welfare to work will be approved, and it will not be approved if it weakens or undercuts or avoids time limits," she said.
Obama campaign officials also noted that as Massachusetts governor in 2005, Romney was one of 28 Republican governors who petitioned Congress for state welfare waivers that were more expansive than those he attacked Tuesday.
The Obama camp got direct support from Clinton late Tuesday evening, who said Romney's ad was untrue. He said the waivers proposed by the administration were designed to safeguard time limits and were in keeping with the goals of the 1996 legislation. He called the ad "especially disappointing" in light of Romney's pursuit of a waiver in 2005.
"We need a bipartisan consensus to continue to help people move from welfare to work even during these hard times, not more misleading campaign ads," Clinton said.
HHS said the waiver proposal was a response to calls from states for more flexibility in how they put people back to work.
"We also heard concerns that some TANF rules stifle innovation and focus attention on paperwork rather than helping parents find jobs," Acting Assistant Secretary George Sheldon said last month in a message to state officials. Waivers will be granted to states only for projects deemed likely to improve job prospects for TANF recipients, he said.
Said Sheila Zedlewski, a fellow at the Urban Institute's Income Benefits and Policy Center: "There's this misperception that the work requirements in TANF are really strong and effective, when in fact work participation rates have been flat for a decade among people on TANF."
Ron Haskins, former House Republican staffer and a key figure in crafting the 1996 legislation, said he supported changes in the work requirements that would give states more flexibility to tailor education and training programs to local labor market conditions.
He noted that the waivers Romney assailed were consistent with his repeated vows to lighten federal regulatory burdens.
"The Romney campaign says that incessantly, but in this case, no, no, no," said Haskins, who is co-director of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families.
But Haskins also had criticism for the Obama administration's approach, which he said shunned a bipartisan discussion of the issue in favor of regulatory tweaks.
"That's a thumb in the eye of Republicans," he said.
ruckerp@washpost.com
turqueb@washpost.com
Turque reported from Washington. David Nakamura contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1393 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 6:59 PM EST
Priorities ad ties Mitt Romney to cancer death;
Super PAC says Romney doesn't understand.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 309 words
This post has been updated.
A new ad from a super PAC supporting President Obama ties former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to a family's loss of health insurance and a woman's subsequent death from cancer.
It's the fourth hard-hitting ad from Priorities USA Action that focuses on former workers at companies closed by Romney's former private equity firm, Bain Capital.
"I don't think Mitt Romney understands what he's done to people's lives by closing the plant," said Joe Soptic, a former employee at GST Steel in Kansas City, in the ad. He says he lost his health care, and then his wife became ill.
"I don't know how long she was sick, and I think maybe she didn't say anything because she knew that we couldn't afford the insurance," Soptic adds. When she finally went to the hospital they found out that it was stage-four cancer, he says. She died soon after.
Soptic concludes, "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned."
The Republican candidate left Bain before GST Steel's 2001 bankruptcy; Obama's team has argued that the story is fair because Romney was at Bain when the initial investment was made. Politico notes that Ranae Soptic died in 2006, long after the plant closed, and CNN adds that at some points during that time she had insurance through her own employer.
While Obama's campaign has said they cannot comment on the ad, not knowing the specifics, Soptic told the same story in a May Obama campaign call.
Romney spokesman Ryan Williams called the ad one of many "discredited and dishonest attacks" meant to "conceal the administration's deplorable economic record."
Read more from PostPolitics
Sarah Palin: Mama grizzlies united
Fact Checker: Harry Reid gets four Pinocchios on Romney's taxes
Romney's V.P. list seems to get shorter
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1394 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 3:34 PM EST
New anti-Romney ad: same steelworker, tougher message (revised);
Joe Soptic is back. Is he blaming Mitt Romney for his wife's death?
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 1990 words
"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my healthcare, and my family lost their healthcare. And a short time after that my wife became ill....She passed away in 22 days. I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone, and furthermore I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned."
- Former steelworker Joe Soptic, in a new ad by Priorities USA
(NOTE: Since we had previously examined at length the circumstances of this Bain investment, we originally had restated the main points of an earlier column. Frankly, we were a bit distracted trying to untangle the welfare charges and countercharges on Tuesday. But new information has come to light and we have updated the column with a Pinocchio rating.)
***
Joe Soptic, a former steelworker, makes yet another appearance in a pro-Obama ad, this time for the Super PAC Priorities USA Action.
We have examined this case before, and for the benefit of readers we repeat our main points from an earlier column that awarded the Obama campaign One Pinocchio for the use of this case study against presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
Most controversially, Soptic this time appears to blame Romney for the death of his wife after he lost his health insurance when the steel plant closed.
Romney was no longer actively managing Bain Capital when the steel company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001 and closed its Kansas City plant, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs and health insurance, as well as part of their pensions. But a case can be made that he was involved in the initial investment and the overall direction of the company before he took on the job of running the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Bill Burton of Priorities USA Action said it would be "overstating" the point of the ad to say Soptic connected Romney to his wife's death. "This is another in a series of ads that demonstrates how long it took for communities and individuals to recover from the closing of these businesses," he said. "Families and individuals had to find new jobs, new sources of health insurance and a way to make up for the pensions they lost. Mitt Romney has had an enduring impact on the lives of thousands of men and women and for many of them, that impact has been devastating."
The Facts
Unlike some of the tales of job-killing and factory-closings that have been thrown at Romney, this is a relatively straightforward story: The initial investment in the steel company was made in 1993 by Bain under Romney's leadership, and the company took on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt while paying Bain investors millions of dollars in dividends.
Bain purchased GS Technologies, a mini-mill in Kansas City - the focus of the ad - and then combined it with Georgetown Industries Inc. in South Carolina, creating GS Industries. Romney was a hands-on manager at Bain, but it is unclear how much direct involvement he had with the newly created company.
Roger Regelbrugge, who became chief executive of the new firm, told Bloomberg News last year that he met Romney at a luncheon in Boston and may have had some subsequent conversations. But he said that most of his communication with Bain was through two Bain executives who served on the GS board - and Romney was not on the board.
Romney, however, has acknowledged he was involved in the initial deal.
"I take personal responsibility for making the investment," Romney told the Boston Globe in 2002 when asked about the plant closure. "But I didn't manage these companies. Our philosophy at Bain Capital was to support management teams in companies where we saw potential for growth, or in companies that were in financial distress that we thought we might be able to save."
Certainly, the Kansas City plant was already on a downward slide when Bain Capital showed up; it is possible the plant may not have survived as long as it did without Bain's investment. A timeline published by the Kansas City Star in 2001 showed the plant had employed 4,500 workers in 1970, but by 1983, it had shrunk to 1,500 workers.
"Poor market conditions forced a wave of layoffs in the early 1980s and led the company to prune its product line," Reuters reported earlier this year in a lengthy report on the deal. "By the early 1990s, the plant focused on two items: wire for products such as mattress springs and tires, and high-carbon balls and rods used by the mining industry to pulverize rocks. The mill's equipment was out of date, and it faced stiff competition from Nucor Corp., which also made grinding balls."
After Bain made its investment, and the company issued new debt, the plant was able to invest in new equipment. Still, the record is clear that Bain reaped a substantial return on its investment - at least $12 million - while the company's debt burden soared to $378 million. That debt left the company vulnerable when a flood of cheap imports dramatically lowered prices and devastated the U.S. steel industry. More than two dozen steel companies filed for bankruptcy protection during that period.
But how much of this was Bain's fault - or Romney's?
The Reuters article quoted union officials as blaming Bain for saddling the company with too much debt. But Reuters also quoted an analyst as blaming the union - which mounted a strike in 1997 over pension benefits - and noting that all of the steel companies that failed in that period were unionized. And Regelbrugge, the former chief executive, blamed his successor for hiring poor managers. "I have no question that the company would have survived under different management," he said. (One could argue that was also Bain's fault.)
Mark Essig, the chief executive at the time of the bankruptcy filing, cited the low prices for steel products but also pointed the finger at the company's debt load. He told New Steel magazine in 2001 that the company had a debt of $500 million, "which is far too much debt for a company of our size." The company had net losses of $16 million, $25 million and $53 million in 1997, 1998 and 1999, respectively - and was making interest payments of $40 million a year.
Essig also cited the high cost of electricity in Kansas City, as well as natural gas. He said the closure of the plant was permanent because "we don't expect wire-rod, electricity, and natural-gas prices to ever make it profitable."
In any case, Romney had left day-to-day management of Bain in February 1999 to help organize the Salt Lake City Olympics. So he was running Bain when GS Industries settled the 1997 strike with workers by promising guarantees on their pensions, but he was not there when the company used the bankruptcy process to break those promises and slash those benefits. (The U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. later determined that the company underfunded the pension plan by $44 million.)
The Kansas City plant was closed in February 2001. Romney did not legally extricate himself from Bain Capital until shortly before his Olympic tenure ended in 2002. (A 2002 Boston Globe article said he retained a key financial interest until August 2001.)
As we have noted before, a 2002 statement Romney filed with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission listed him as a 100 percent owner of "Bain Capital Inc."
But there is less than meets the eye here. Bain Capital Inc. was the management firm, which was paid a management fee to run the funds and actually made virtually no profit, since it existed to pay salaries and expenses. After Romney formally left Bain in 2001, a new entity called "Bain Capital LLC" took over the management function.
We have given the Obama campaign Pinocchios for blaming Romney for Bain deals that took place entirely after he left for the Olympics gig. This case is a different matter. It falls into a gray area, because the investment and many key decisions were made while Romney was running Bain, as he has acknowledged - even if the denouement came when he was no longer in charge. Romney, in fact, in the past has tried to claim credit for jobs created at companies years after he left Bain, so it's no surprise the Obama campaign would try to tag him for job losses.
Bain Capital issued a statement saying that "we understand that in a political campaign our exemplary 28-year record will be distorted and complex business situations will be portrayed in a simplistic way." This is how Bain described the case of GS Industries:
"Bain Capital undertook an ambitious plan in 1993 to turnaround GSI, a struggling manufacturer of specialty steel products that was slated for closure if no investor could be found. We invested more than $100 million and many thousands of hours into this turnaround, upgrading its facilities in an attempt to make the company competitive. This was unfortunately at a time when the steel industry came under enormous pressure, and nearly half of all U.S. steel companies went into bankruptcy."
The death of Soptic's wife.
In the ad, Soptic says: "When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my healthcare, and my family lost their healthcare. And a short time after that my wife became ill."
The operative phrase is "short time." The plant closed down in 2001. Politico first reported that Ranae Soptic died in 2006-five years later. (That's when Romney was governor of Massachusetts.) "Soptic went to the hospital for pneumonia, but doctors found signs of very advanced cancer, and she died two weeks later on June 22," the Kansas City Star reported on June 26, 2006.
Part of the issue is when his wife got cancer. Clearly, if she had advanced cancer, it may have taken years to develop. But the phrase "short time" certainly leaves the impression that things happened quickly after he lost his health insurance.
There are studiesshowing that the uninsured are less likely to survive lung cancer, which is slow growing. But the ad does not highlight these facts directly.
In an interview with our colleague Nia-Malika Henderson, Soptic declined to comment on whether he believes Romney is to blame for his Ranae's death. But, referring to his former employer, he said: "They made certain promises and I feel like if they did fulfill those promises she would have had health insurance."
In the ad, Soptic also says that when "Romney and Bain closed the plant...my family lost their healthcare."
That's not quite accurate either. CNN reported that, from speaking with Soptic, it had learned that his wife had continued to have her own insurance after the plant was shut down. She later lost the coverage in 2002 or 2003 when she left her own job because of an injury.
Here's the CNN report:
The Pinocchio Test
Lay aside the question of whether Romney left active management of Bain in 1999 or 2001. The fact that Soptic's wife died five years after the closure of the plant-and that she had had her own health insurance for a period after he lost his job-makes her passing largely irrelevant to Romney's involvement in this transaction.
Yes, people without health insurance are less likely to survive cancer. Yes, Soptic lost his health insurance when the plant closed. Yes, Romney was involved in the deal at the beginning. But still...it kind of reminds us of the so-called "butterfly effect"--that a storm starts with the flapping of a butterfly's wings.
As we noted, a case could be made that Bain's involvement extended the life of a dying steel plant, in which case Soptic kept his insurance longer than he might have expected.
Soptic is welcome to his opinion on possible reasons for his wife's death, but that does not mean Obama supporters should exploit it. On just every level, this ad stretches the bounds of common sense and decency.
Four Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1395 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 2:54 PM EST
Partisans love to hate President Obama and Mitt Romney;
New Washington Post/ABC News poll shows 8 in ten Republicans view President Obama unfavorably and the same number of Democrats see Mitt Romney that same way.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Scott Clement;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1114 words
More than eight in 10 Republicans view President Obama unfavorably, while a similar number of Democrats see former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in an negative light, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The numbers are just the latest sign of the deep partisan divide gripping the 2012 presidential race.
Eighty-four percent of Republicans view Obama unfavorably, while 80 percent of Democrats feel the same about Romney. Those are among the highest numbers ever measured for the opposing candidates in Post-ABC polling, far outdistancing all but how Republicans viewed Bill Clinton in 1996 (78 percent unfavorable) and how Democrats saw George W. Bush in 2004 (76 percent unfavorable).
Here's a full chart detailing how the opposite party has felt about the presidential nominees dating back to 1988:
The partisan polarization is even bigger than it appears on its face - particularly in regards to how Republicans regard (or don't) Obama, with 70 percent of GOPers seeing him in a strongly unfavorable light.
The numbers also aren't great for Romney among Democrats - 57 percent view him very unfavorably - but when compared to Obama, the former Massachusetts governor looks downright popular among members of the opposition party.
Given the tone of the campaign thus far, those numbers are not at all surprising. But what they do tell us is that partisans are more entrenched in their respective camps earlier than ever before - and motivation on either side shouldn't be any problem for Democrats or Republicans.
The bigger problem may well not be in the campaign but in its aftermath, as the deeply unfavorable views that partisans feel towards the candidate of the opposite party aren't likely to go away no matter who wins - and cloud an already-difficult post-election phase with the "fiscal cliff" rapidly approaching.
The Post-ABC poll was conducted Aug. 1-5 among 1,026 adults on both conventional and cellular phones. The margin of error for the overall results is plus or minus four percentage points; it's seven points for results among Republicans and 7.5 points for results among Democrats. Full interactive results and breakdowns available here.
Akin wins primary to face McCaskill: Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) won the GOP primary to face Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) on Tuesday, lining up one of the premier Senate matchups of the 2012 election.
Akin emerged from a field that included former state treasurer Sarah Steelman and businessman John Brunner, and he was propped up by some late Democratic ads that seemed designed to promote his nomination, which Democrats saw as their best possible outcome.
McCaskill is currently rated by The Fix as the most vulnerable senator in 2012, though, and Republicans are counting on winning her seat to help return them to the majority.
For more on the results in several states Tuesday, see The Fix's House recap here.
Priorities USA ad called 'not true': CNN has labeled as false a stark new Democratic super PAC ad featuring a man who blames Bain Capital for his lack of health insurance and, by extension, his wife's death from cancer.
CNN reports that the woman who died actually had her primary insurance through her job at a local thrift store and carried secondary insurance through her husband's job at GST Steel.
Her husband lost his job at GST in 2001, she lost her job in 2002 or 2003, and she died in 2006, just weeks after being diagnosed with cancer. The Priorities USA Action ad leaves the impression that she lost her insurance when her husband lost his job and died because she didn't have insurance.
The man, Obama supporter Joe Soptic, says he still blames Romney for his wife's lack of coverage.
"Mitt Romney is a very rich man. I mean, it is obvious if you watch him on television, he is completely out of touch with the average family - you know, middle-income people," Soptic told CNN. "I don't think he has any concept as to how when you close a big company how [it] affects families, the community. You know, it affects everyone."
Romney botches 'Sikh': Romney's visit to Iowa was marked by a couple slips of the tongue, with the candidate transposing the word "Sikh" with "sheik" while discussing the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.
"We had a moment of silence in honor of the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple. I noted that it was a tragedy for many, many reasons," Romney said. "Among them are the fact that people, the sheik people, are among the most peaceable and loving individuals you can imagine, as is their faith."
A sheik is the term for a leader of an Arab family or village. Romney spokesman Rick Gorka said the candidate "mispronounced similar-sounding words."
This probably doesn't help a guy who recently had a rough foreign trip, though it's hardly a major deal.
Fixbits:
The Obama Administration uses Republican Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval to argue against Romney on welfare reform.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) says Obama should let all of the Bush tax cuts expire.
Ann Romney's horse falls short of winning a medal in dressage.
Elizabeth Warren releases a new Massachusetts Senate race ad urging more investment in education.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) debuts a third "Democrats for Brown" ad.
A new DSCC ad in Montana hits Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) for voting for a congressional pay raise even though he's a millionaire, using old footage of the congressman swearing off pay raises.
An internal poll for Rep. Mazie Hirono shows her leading former congressman Ed Case in the Hawaii Democratic Senate primary by 17 points.
Redistricting reform will be on the ballot in Ohio.
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) says Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), the only Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus, offended his colleagues when he bought them Chick-fil-A for lunch six months ago.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) endorses former Honolulu mayor Mufi Hannemann in the Democratic primary for Hirono's House seat.
The Minnesota Democratic party is spending $120,000 to boost its endorsed candidate, former congressman Rick Nolan, in the race to face Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.).
Must-reads:
"Convention Challenge: VIP Speakers Who Send Wrong Message" - Beth Reinhard, National Journal
"GOP businessmen-candidates in Missouri, Wisconsin, Arizona portray themselves as outsiders" - Paul Kane, Washington Post
"Romney's Job Growth Promises" - Catherine Rampell, New York Times
"Ohio economy improving, but residents can't feel it" - Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post
"Obama campaign app concerns some privacy advocates" - Hayley Tsukayama, Washington Post
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1396 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 2:38 PM EST
Romney ad says Obama will 'gut welfare reform';
Ad claims waivers will end Clinton's reform.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 300 words
A new ad from Mitt Romney accuses President Obama of destroying one of the last Democratic president's signature policies - the "Welfare to Work" program.
The ad is part of a new Romney campaign push focused on welfare, part of an ongoing effort to paint Obama as a big-government liberal out of step with former president Bill Clinton.
The ad criticizes Obama for permitting states to get waivers for the program - although Romney supported welfare waivers when he was Massachusetts governor.
"In 1996, President Clinton and a bipartisan Congress helped end welfare as we know it," the narrator says. "But on July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Numerous Republicans have criticized the proposed waivers.
Obama's team counters that the waivers are not designed to eliminate work requirements but to offer states more flexibility and opportunity for experimentation. The rules can't be expanded to include people who don't currently qualify. To get a waiver, a governor must pledge that his or her proposed plan will move 20 percent more people from welfare to work. If no progress towards that target is made in a year, the waiver will be revoked.
A group of Republican governors asked in 2005 for waivers to get around the system's bureaucratic red tape, which often rewards job-searching more than actual employment - something the White House is pointing out now. Romney was one of them, but it was not the same waiver being discussed now. Five states, including two with Republican governors - Nevada and Utah - have asked the current Health and Human Services Department about waivers.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1397 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 2:15 PM EST
Mitt Romney's money edge - and whether it matters;
The Repuiblican presidential nominee is primed to heavily outspend President Obama in the final 90 days of the election. How much does that fundraising advantage matter to the outcome?
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1184 words
In the past two months, former Massachusetts governor.
And, while Obama's campaign has yet to release its cash-on-hand total at the end of July, it's a near-certainty that Romney's $26 million edge at the end of June widened in July.
Add to those numbers the fact that, as of mid-July, Republican super PACs and other conservative aligned outside groups were outspending their Democratic counterparts by a seven-to-one margin on the TV airwaves in swing states, and you are left with a simple, inescapable conclusion: The President of the United States is likely to be heavily outspent in the final three months of this campaign.
On that point, all political types agree. On how worried Obama and his team are - and should be - about being outspent so heavily, there is considerably more debate.
Guy Saperstein, a major Democratic donor who has been publicly critical of Obama, said he recently played golf with a major Obama donor/bundler and "they will tell you they are worried" about the fundraising disparity in the race's final stages.
Saperstein added that Obama's team adding more fundraisers to his schedule - the president was in Connecticut on Monday night to raise money and will spend Wednesday and Thursday in Colorado collecting cash (among other activities) - amounted to evidence of those worries.
(Saperstein did note, however, that he doesn't believe the race will be determined by which candidate spends the most. More on that below.)
Another Democrat who closely follows the activities of major donors in the party was even more blunt - although he was unwilling to speak on the record about his concerns.
"I would be scared silly if I were them," the Democrat said of the Obama team. "While they will raise enough in September and October to stay competitive, the psychological and energy drain of having to worry about this will be another burden they don't need."
The other strain of thinking about Obama's near-certain fundraising disadvantage in the race's final 90 days is that it's actually less than meets the eye.
Here's why, according to the Democrats we spoke to:
1. Obama has already spent hugely - to the tune of $400 million! - to define both himself and Romney, setting the narrative for the race to come, no matter how much Republicans can spend between now and Nov. 6.
2. Because of the incessant news coverage of the race, candidate - and even outside group - spending carries significantly less import. "There is so much free media coverage for both candidates, and even more for an incumbent president, that no amount of paid media can come close to matching it," said Jonathan Prince, a senior Democratic strategist. "What's critical is to drive message, to own your image and define your opponent's."
3. The law of diminishing returns applies to politics. That is, if Romney spends $850 million total on the election to Obama's $750 million, will it make that big a difference?
All that being said, no one on the Democratic side - and we mean no one - thinks it's a good thing that Obama and his allies are set to be heavily outspent between now and the election. At best, they argue it's a neutral factor. At worst, they openly fret about the possibility it could swing what is expected to be a very close contest toward Romney.
"The Obama campaign will have enough money to state their case, but everyone on our side should be worried about [Karl] Rove, [Sheldon] Adelson and the Koch brothers spending hundreds of millions on top of what now looks like a hefty Romney/RNC advantage," said longtime Democratic operative Steve Rosenthal. "It's daunting and should be a wake-up call for progressive donors."
It's primary day: Voters will head to the polls in four states today - Kansas, Michigan, Missouri and Washington state - for some key primaries.
The highest-profile races are contested GOP Senate races in Michigan and Missouri - Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), in particular, is a top GOP target - but junkies will also want to watch the open Washington governor's race, where state Attorney General Rob McKenna (R) and former congressman Jay Inslee (D) will compete against one another in the same blanket primary.
Downballot, there are a pair of member-versus-member primaries - one between Reps. Gary Peters (D) and Hansen Clarke (D) in Michigan and the other between Reps. Lacy Clay (D) and Russ Carnahan (D) in Missouri. Peters and Clay are heavy favorites, with the former likely to become only the second white congressman in a majority-black district.
Also in Michigan, the muddled situation in former congressman Thaddeus McCotter's (R-Mich.) district will be sorted out when write-in candidate and former state senator Nancy Cassis faces the only candidate on the GOP primary ballot, Kerry Bentivolio.
Stay tuned to The Fix this morning for a look at five things to watch for tonight.
Crossroads GPS buys time in five states: The nonprofit arm of the American Crossroads super PAC, Crossroads GPS, is going up with $7.2 million worth of ads in five states, according to a Democratic media buyer.
The money will be spent in Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, and Virginia over the next two weeks. A formal ad buy has not yet been announced.
Matt Canter, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement that the group is spending money because "George Allen, Dean Heller, Denny Rehberg, Rick Berg, John Brunner, Sarah Steelman and Todd Akin will push their special interest agenda in Washington."
Fixbits:
Romney and the RNC launch a new ad hitting Obama on welfare reform. More here.
Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin will all speak at the Republican National Convention, writes Reuters' Sam Youngman.
Romney now has the press following him at all times.
Hollywood is raising money for Obama again. Meanwhile, ABC notes that Hollywood is a major outsourcer.
Obama's campaign releases a web video showing people comparing their fate under Obama's tax plan to Romney's.
Maine Secretary of State Charlie Summers (R) goes after former governor Angus King (I) for hypocrisy on negative ads.
Americans for Tax Reform targets Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate Eric Hovde for refusing to sign its tax pledge.
A new ad for Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) says he "always puts Montana first," noting he was the only Democrat to vote against both the auto and Wall Street bailouts.
North Dakota Democratic Senate candidate Heidi Heitkamp pushes veterans health care in a new ad.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) calls Republicans the "E. coli Club."
Must-reads:
"Romney team struggles to sharpen foreign policy message" - Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson, Washington Post
"Romney's July fundraising outpaces Obama's" - Bill Turque and T.W. Farnam, Washington Post
"In Weak Economy, an Opening to Court Votes of Single Women" - Shaila Dewan, New York Times
"Harry Reid's latest broadside" - Dana Milbank, Washington Post
"How to Spot Romney's Vice President Pick in Advance" - Micah L. Sifry, Tech President
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1398 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Think Tanked
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 1:14 PM EST
Romney vs. Obama campaign ads, comparative class warfare and more [AM Briefing];
The morning's think tank news: Romney vs. Obama campaign ads, comparative class warfare and more.
BYLINE: Allen McDuffee
LENGTH: 245 words
Politico's Arena asks: Does Obama's Bain ad go too far? CEPR's Dean Baker answers.
"President Obama has created a firestorm by overturning the work requirements of the popular 1996 welfare-reform law. Now his White House is bristling because Mitt Romney dares to point out that fact on the stump and in a new campaign ad," writes Heritage's Robert Rector. (National Review)
"What's the best way of trashing Mitt Romney's tax plan? In these days of class warfare, it's to say his plan would result in tax cuts for high-income earners but tax increases for everyone else," writes Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth. (Washington Examiner)
Bring back Build America Bonds: "The unemployment rate remains stuck at more than 8 percent. More investment in roads, water systems, airports and other public infrastructure would bring both short- and long-term benefits. And state and local governments face ongoing deficits. So wouldn't it be great if we could design an efficient way to channel tax subsidies to state and local governments to invest in infrastructure?" writes CFR's Peter Orszag. (Bloomberg)
AEI's Jonah Goldberg: The GOP and the Latino vote. (National Review)
What the U.S. should do in Syria: "The United States has a window to facilitate an orderly transition in Syria without deploying military force. But the window is narrowing - and the Obama administration will need to adjust its political strategy to succeed," writes Zalmay Khalilzad (Washington Post)
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1399 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 8, 2012 Wednesday 12:53 PM EST
Bill Clinton denounces Romney's welfare ad;
Former president Bill Clinton is speaking out against a new ad from Mitt Romney's campaign that accuses President Obama of rolling back Clinton's welfare reforms.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 352 words
Former president Bill Clinton is speaking out against a new ad from Mitt Romney's campaign that accuses President Obama of rolling back Clinton's welfare reforms.
"Gov. Romney released an ad today alleging that the Obama administration had weakened the work requirements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. That is not true," Clinton said in a statement from his office at the Clinton Foundation released late Tuesday night.
The Romney campaign ad criticizes Obama for allowing states to acquire waivers for the so-called "Welfare to Work" program.
The ad says that Obama "quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Clinton said the waiver policy was enacted at the request of GOP governors from Utah and Nevada who wanted more flexibility in their programs. Moreover, he said it will not "gut" the program.
"The administration has taken important steps to ensure that the work requirement is retained and that waivers will be granted only if a state can demonstrate that more people will be moved into work under its new approach," Clinton said. "The welfare time limits, another important feature of the 1996 act, will not be waived."
The fact that Clinton is defending Obama, of course, is not surprising, given that they are both Democrats and Clinton supports Obama. But as a former president, his repudiation of Romney's ad does carry more weight than anything the Obama campaign or White House could supply.
Romney spokesman Ryan Williams responds: "President Obama was a vocal opponent of the innovative, bipartisan welfare reforms that President Clinton and a Republican Congress passed in 1996. His administration has now undermined the central premise of those reforms by gutting the welfare-to-work requirement. Unlike President Obama, Mitt Romney has a record of fighting to strengthen work requirements. As president, he will ensure that nearly 16 years of progress aren't erased with one stroke of a pen."
Updated at 12:13 a.m.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1400 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 8, 2012 Wednesday
Regional Edition
BYLINE: - Laura Vozzella
SECTION: METRO; Pg. B02
LENGTH: 358 words
Election board won't seek criminal probe of mailings
Virginia election officials will not seek a criminal investigation into voter registration forms that a District-based nonprofit mailed to hundreds of dead Virginians, children, noncitizens, pets and others ineligible to vote.
Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in July called for a criminal probe into Voter Participation Center mailings that arrived in hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Virginia mailboxes filled out with the names of ineligible voters.
Charles E. Judd, chairman of the State Board of Elections, said at the time that he did not expect to seek a criminal investigation into the mailings, which the center blamed on a faulty commercial mailing list.
On Monday, the full board officially decided against an inquiry. The board took no vote, but at a meeting on the issue, it declined to ask Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) to investigate.
After hearing from "many folks on both sides of the issue, and with the repeated assurances from VPC that they would not pre-populate the forms, [would] edit their copy so as to not imply that the mailing was sent from SBE, and [would] take additional measure to 'clean' the lists before the mail drop ... the board took no action to officially ask the AG to investigate," Judd said later by e-mail.
The board received more than 750 complaints, mostly from people whose pets or deceased relatives received solicitations to register to vote.
The mailings revived talk of voter fraud in Virginia, a crucial swing state where President Obama and Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, were deadlocked in a recent poll.
Romney's campaign had argued that the mailings threatened the integrity of the presidential election.
The center stressed that it mailed voter registration applications - forms widely available at government offices and online - and not voter ID cards, which can serve as identification at the polls and can be issued only by election officials.
It was the responsibility of recipients and election officials to make sure that no one actually registered with an errant form, the center said.
- Laura Vozzella
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1401 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 8, 2012 Wednesday
Met 2 Edition
Romney attacks Obama on welfare reform
BYLINE: Philip Rucker;Bill Turque
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 955 words
DATELINE: ELK GROVE VILLAGE, ILL.
ELK GROVE VILLAGE, Ill. - Mitt Romney sought to inject the issue of welfare into the presidential campaign here Tuesday, accusing President Obama of dismantling federal welfare reform and creating a "culture of dependency."
The presumptive Republican nominee charged that the Obama administration has reversed the popular bipartisan welfare reform that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 by allowing waivers for states for welfare work requirements.
But the charge drew immediate push back from the Obama campaign, and a direct rebuke of Romney by Clinton himself, who called it false.
Romney's comments come as his campaign makes a play for middle-class voters with a new offensive focused on welfare. Earlier Tuesday, his team rolled out a new 30-second television advertisement, "Right Choice," that says, "Obama guts welfare reform."
The spot is Romney's latest attempt to cast Obama as a big-government liberal and to drive a wedge between the president and the legacyof the popular Clinton. Experts on the law, however, said the changes were consistent with calls from governors for lighter federal regulations and intended to ease the burden of states seeking flexibility.
"That is wrong. If I'm president, I'll put work back in welfare," said Romney, who was campaigning in this suburb just outside Obama's home town of Chicago. He added, "We will end the culture of dependency and restore a culture of good, hard work."
The Department of Health and Human Services announced on July 12 that it would consider requests for waivers from states seeking more latitude in administering Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The centerpiece of the 1996 Clinton legislation, TANF established work requirements and time-limited benefits for recipients. Although caseloads dropped sharply as the economy boomed in the late 1990s, state officials and welfare experts say tougher financial times and overly stringent rules have stalled progress.
Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaign's policy director, said in a memo Tuesday that the rules changes were a sign that "not everyone was enthusiastic about welfare reform."
"For instance, a man named Barack Obama took to the floor of the Illinois State Senate to announce his opposition. A devoted believer in old-school, big-government liberalism, Mr. Obama had no interest in embracing the welfare reform package," Chen wrote. "Now as president, with an economy struggling, an election looming, and a dispirited liberal base in need of encouragement, he has decided to turn back the clock."
Obama campaign officials pushed back hard. In a conference call with reporters, deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter blasted the ad as "hypocritical and false."
She said the administration agreed to allow states to apply for waivers after hearing from governors, including Republicans Gary Herbert of Utah and Brian Sandoval of Nevada, who sought relief from cumbersome federal requirements and paperwork. To secure a waiver, however, states must show that their welfare programs will increase job placements by 20 percent, Cutter said.
"No plan that undercuts the goal of moving people from welfare to work will be approved, and it will not be approved if it weakens or undercuts or avoids time limits," she said.
Obama campaign officials also noted that as Massachusetts governor in 2005, Romney was one of 28 Republican governors who petitioned Congress for state welfare waivers that were more expansive than those he attacked Tuesday.
The Obama camp got direct support from Clinton late Tuesday evening, who said Romney's ad was untrue. He said the waivers proposed by the administration were designed to safeguard time limits and were in keeping with the goals of the 1996 legislation. He called the ad "especially disappointing" in light of Romney's pursuit of a waiver in 2005.
"We need a bipartisan consensus to continue to help people move from welfare to work even during these hard times, not more misleading campaign ads," Clinton said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/19/the-obama-administration-fires-back-on-welfare/HHS said the waiver proposal was a response to calls from states for more flexibility in how they put people back to work.
"We also heard concerns that some TANF rules stifle innovation and focus attention on paperwork rather than helping parents find jobs," Acting Assistant Secretary George Sheldon said last month in a message to state officials. Waivers will be granted to states only for projects deemed likely to improve job prospects for TANF recipients, he said.
Said Sheila Zedlewski, a fellow at the Urban Institute's Income Benefits and Policy Center: "There's this misperception that the work requirements in TANF are really strong and effective, when in fact work participation rates have been flat for a decade among people on TANF."
Ron Haskins, former House Republican staffer and a key figure in crafting the 1996 legislation, said he supported changes in the work requirements that would give states more flexibility to tailor education and training programs to local labor market conditions.
He noted that the waivers Romney assailed were consistent with his repeated vows to lighten federal regulatory burdens.
"The Romney campaign says that incessantly, but in this case, no, no, no," said Haskins, who is co-director of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families.
But Haskins also had criticism for the Obama administration's approach, which he said shunned a bipartisan discussion of the issue in favor of regulatory tweaks.
"That's a thumb in the eye of Republicans," he said.
ruckerp@washpost.com
turqueb@washpost.com
Turque reported from Washington. David Nakamura contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1402 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
In Weak Economy, an Opening to Court Votes of Single Women
BYLINE: By SHAILA DEWAN; Robert Gebeloff contributed reporting from New York.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 10
LENGTH: 1269 words
LAS VEGAS -- Being single, Alyson Sheradin had no one to rely on when the financial crisis hit. She lost the considerable savings she had tucked away after selling her business in 2002, and struggled to find work as a business consultant, recently moving in with a friend in the suburbs who does not charge her rent.Ms. Sheradin, 49, a registered Libertarian, voted Republican in 2008. But now, as she weighs competing inclinations -- she believes Americans should have health care but is wary of President Obama's plan; she bristles at burdens on small business but also at constraints on women's rights -- she is not so sure. ''I am definitely a swing vote,'' she said over a pizza lunch with single friends. ''I have no idea.''
As much as Ms. Sheradin is up for grabs in this election, so too are the legions of unmarried women who helped lift Mr. Obama to victory in 2008. Single women are one of the country's fastest-growing demographic groups -- there are 1.8 million more now than just two years ago. They make up a quarter of the voting-age population nationally, and even more in several swing states, including Nevada.
And though they lean Democratic -- in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, single women favored Mr. Obama over his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, by 29 points -- they are also fickle about casting their ballots, preoccupied with making ends meet and alienated from a political system they say is increasingly deaf to their concerns.
But the Obama campaign, needing their support to offset traditional Republican strength among married women, is lavishing attention on them. Mr. Obama and his allies are highlighting issues like Mr. Romney's support for cutting federal funds to Planned Parenthood, which they say resonate with single women and that help draw a contrast between the two sides. A new Obama ad calling Mr. Romney ''out of touch'' with average women on health and contraception issues began running last weekend in battleground states.
''It's a very Democratic voting population, but it's not registered or turning out at the same rate as their married counterparts,'' said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has canvassed single women for the Voter Participation Center in Washington, pointing out that Mr. Obama had won among single women by a wide margin, but lost married women by three percentage points.
In 2010, though, turnout among single women, especially 18-to-29-year-olds, dropped more than for other groups, and Republicans won the women's vote for the first time in 30 years. ''The terrain is very fertile,'' Ms. Lake continued, ''but we have to till the field.''
In an election focused on the economy, single women present a complicated case. They already earn less than married people and single men, and they have not fared well during the Obama administration. They have had a harder time than married women paying rent, getting medical care and finding jobs. While the jobless rate for married women has stayed relatively low, at 5.6 percent compared with 2.6 percent before the recession, the rate for unmarried women has risen to 11 percent, from a prerecession level of 6 percent.
Still, polling and focus groups show that single women are reluctant to blame Mr. Obama for their economic woes and tend to approve of a greater role for government in crises. Their reliance on programs like welfare, food stamps and Medicaid has grown significantly since 2007. In 2010, 55 percent of their households got some form of assistance, not counting school lunches, compared with 18 percent of married women's households.
''There's definitely an opening'' for Republicans to court single women, said Courtney Johnson, who oversees women's outreach for the Romney campaign. ''I think women are looking for something different at this point. They're saying, 'I don't like how things are going right now.' ''
Both the Obama and the Romney campaigns say they are not drafting messages specifically for single women, even though single women have strikingly different concerns and voting habits than married women have. ''How many campaigns start out with an ad that shows a happily married candidate, perfect kids, and talk about the marriage tax credit?'' Ms. Lake asked. ''And you wonder why single women don't turn out to vote.''
The economy has damped enthusiasm among even core members of Mr. Obama's base. In 2008, Carolyn Essex, 52, a black single mother in Las Vegas, knocked on doors and held house parties for Mr. Obama.
Not this year. Ms. Essex and her 9-year-old son are a step away from homelessness, living in transitional housing. ''Right now,'' she said, ''what's more important is that I find a job.''
(After the interview, Ms. Essex was offered a job at a casino, but said she would continue to focus on attaining stability rather than the election.)
Democrats say single women are highly motivated by women's issues like threats to abortion rights, access to contraception and equal pay, arguing that what seem like social issues have a direct impact on their bottom line.
But Republicans insist those concerns have been trumped by the poor economy. ''Rome is burning -- our country's burning -- and you're concerned about these issues?'' asked Maureen Karas, southern director for the Nevada Federation of Republican Women. ''Birth control pills are like nine bucks. That's like two lattes.''
Democrats point to several races in which single women were the deciding factor, like the narrow victory of Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat, in Colorado. More recently, though on a much smaller scale, women voters in a Democratic primary in North Las Vegas helped defeat a white male incumbent state senator, John Lee, in favor of a political newcomer, Patricia Spearman, who was outspent by a factor of 15.
Opponents of Mr. Lee made central issues of his support for restricting abortion rights and access to contraception. Fifty-four percent of the voters were women, and almost a third of them had never voted in a primary before, according to an analysis by Mr. Lee's opponents.
''When you educate people about these issues,'' said Annette Magnus, the public affairs manager for the Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, which helped campaign against Mr. Lee, ''they actually do go out and vote.''
Opinion research shows that single women are less responsive to issues that have no immediate bearing on their daily lives, like corporate tax rates or the federal debt.
Tabitha Farr, a 32-year-old divorced mother of two whose income as a waitress has plummeted since the recession, agreed. ''Deficit?'' she said. ''No. I think about, 'Can I pay for my child care this week?' ''
In several interviews, women of various political stripes said they believed that the president could do little to help them personally, or bolster prosperity in general.
''I feel like it doesn't matter how I vote, what I think. They're going to do what they're going to do anyway,'' said Jeannine Loewy, 35, a divorced mother of two and a hairstylist who has lost a quarter of her clients since the recession. ''And we just have to deal with it.''
That feeling may fuel one of the Democrats' great hopes -- that threats to abortion rights, attacks on Planned Parenthood and objections to the health care law's requirement that insurance plans cover birth control pills -- will prove to be more meaningful for single women than jobs plans.
''I don't think a new president will do much to help the economy,'' said Diane Jackson, 61, a former financial planner who is looking for work. ''But I do see Obama at least protecting us from a radical takeover on social issues.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/us/politics/in-weak-economy-an-opening-to-court-votes-of-single-women.html
LOAD-DATE: August 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1403 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Ross Douthat)
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
Keeping The Disaffected That Way
BYLINE: ROSS DOUTHAT
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 569 words
HIGHLIGHT: Does the Obama campaign want to win the white working class, or just persuade them to stay home?
Writing on what he calls the Obama campaign's "chemical warfare" against Mitt Romney's wealth and business record, John Ellis of Buzzfeed offers the following assessment of the electoral landscape:
The 2012 president election, boiled down to its remaining variables, is about two things: (1) white voters who voted for Barack Obama last time and have since grown disillusioned and, (2) white voters who stayed home in 2008 rather than vote for John McCain but may vote this time. The Obama campaign's goal is to make both groups stay home rather than vote. It's not a "negative campaign" they're running. It's purposefully toxic.
This may be useful way of resolving one of the interesting strategic questions of this cycle - namely, whether the Obama campaign is consciously giving up on the white working class vote (in the sense of conceding that the Republican nominee will win a majority and even a supermajority of non-college educated whites) and just trying to expand and excite Rudy Teixeira and John B. Judis's "emerging Democratic majority" of minorities, young voters, unmarried women and affluent professionals. Many of the White House's election-year policy choices have suggested that they're doing exactly that: The Obama campaign's high-profile emphasis on social issues (complete with explicit leftward shifts on gay marriage, immigration and welfare reform), in particular, would seem to be an extremely poor fit for the kind of voters in Ellis's two categories, most of whom fall into what the Pew Research has called the "disaffected" demographic - a bloc that's older and whiter than average, skeptical of government waste and conservative-leaning on cultural issues, but also distrustful of corporations and more sympathetic to the safety net that the typical Republican.
Yet at the same time, the Obama team's biggest, highest-profile ad campaigns have been aimed squarely at that once-Democratic demographic, summoning the rhetoric of an older, more blue-collar and culturally conservative liberalism to portray Romney as a sinister, un-American job-killing plutocrat and the mortal enemy (quite literally, according to a pro-Obama SuperPAC) of decent hardworking men and women everywhere.
Viewed from a certain angle, these two approaches would seem to be at cross-purposes. (Why pander to blue-collar whites in your ad buys if you're just going to alienate them on immigration policy or welfare?) But if the goal isn't to win disaffected working class whites so much as to render Romney sufficiently radioactive that they mostly just sit things out in disgust, then the two-track approach makes considerably more sense. In that scenario, Obama doesn't need these voters to like him, so he can afford to direct his policy pandering elsewhere; he just needs them to dislike his opponent enough to declare a plague on both houses and stay home.
There's nothing particularly unusual about this kind of strategy, and Obama would hardly be the first politician to turn disillusionment to his advantage. Still, it says something about how far we've come from "hope and change" that the president's re-election hopes may depend on making a struggling, disaffected and perpetually-disappointed bloc of American voters even more disaffected than ever.
The Social Issues Strategy Revisited
The Complacent Romney Campaign
Playing For 51 Percent
The Media and Obama's Immigration Gambit
Obama and the Steelworkers
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1404 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
Gutting Welfare
BYLINE: ANDREW ROSENTHAL
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 236 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mitt Romney's new welfare attack ad is--surprise surprise--dishonest.
In 2005, 29 Republican Governors requested more flexibility in implementing welfare work requirements. They asked Congress for "increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit" in order to "effectively serve low-income" Americans according to their states' needs. One of these governors was, as the mayor of London once put it, a guy called Mitt Romney.
Last month, the governors of Utah and Nevada-both Republicans-again requested flexibility in implementing work requirements, and applied for waivers to certain rules. The Obama administration agreed. Then a guy called Mitt Romney accused the president of gutting welfare reform.
A new Romney campaign ad claims the president "quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements." Under his plan, "you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check .and welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare."
For the record, the waivers don't do away with the work requirement; they provide states with more flexibility in they shift welfare recipients into jobs. We call this federalism. But if the president's guilty of gutting welfare reform, then his challenger's guilty of having tried to do the same thing in 2005.
You Didn't Build That
Bundled Up
Health Care Confusion
No Comment Necessary: Gun Control and Genocide
Opinion Report: The Fiscal Cliff
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1405 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Green)
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
On Our Radar: Manila as Waterworld
BYLINE: THE NEW YORK TIMES
SECTION: SCIENCE; earth
LENGTH: 258 words
HIGHLIGHT: Monsoon rains exacerbated by a typhoon have devastated much of the Philippine capital.
Deadly torrential rains worsened by a tropical storm submerge over half of the Philippine capital. The storm is now headed for Zhejiang Province in China, where more than 250,000 people have been evacuated ahead of its anticipated landfall late Wednesday. [Reuters]
As black smoke billows into the sky, thousands of East Bay residents in Northern California are ordered to stay in their homes with the windows and doors closed after after a series of explosions and fires tear through a Chevron refinery. No fatalities were reported. [SFGate]
Energy politics: in a radio ad in Ohio, the Obama campaign contends that the president champions "clean coal" but that Mitt Romney says that coal jobs "kill people." (Mr. Romney made the remark in cracking down on a specific coal-fired plant when he was governor of Massachusetts.) Meanwhile, Senator Harry Reid and President Obama's interior secretary, Ken Salazar, rally behind clean energy in Nevada, another battleground state. [Politico, Associated Press]
In a 2-1 vote, the World Intellectual Property Organization rules that Greenpeace's affiliate in Finland did not violate the intellectual property rights of the Finnish company Neste Oil by using a variation on its domain name to create a Web site mocking the company's palm oil cultivation. [World Intellectual Property Organization.]
On Our Radar: Hundreds Die in Floods in the Philippines
Britain Will Let Chevron Drill Deep in North Sea
On Our Radar: Copenhagen's Cargo Bikes
How to Rebuild the Mississippi Delta
On Our Radar: Rising Corn Prices
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1406 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
Republicans Focus Attacks on Obama's Advisers
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 1159 words
HIGHLIGHT: As election day draws closer, Republicans have stepped up their attacks - not on President Obama, but rather on his top aides.
As election day draws closer, Republicans have stepped up their attacks - not just on President Obama, but also on his top aides.
For weeks now, senior advisers to Mr. Obama have been fending off a variety of charges that have called into question their official activities while serving in the White House for the president.
Most of the attacks have involved Solyndra, the California solar energy company that received federal government loan guarantees but went bankrupt as its business failed to materialize. Those have been fueled by once-secret e-mails unearthed by Republicans on Capitol Hill.
But the Republican allies of Mitt Romney have also seized on news reports to criticize Mr. Obama's senior advisers for myriad other alleged transgressions, highlighting the president's own insistence at the start of his term that his administration would maintain the highest ethical standards.
On Monday, the White House once again found itself on the defensive, this time over a report by The Washington Post that David Plouffe, a senior adviser in the White House and Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign manager, had received a $100,000 speaking fee from a company that has done business with Iran.
"David Plouffe was invited to speak in Africa by an affiliate company of the company you mentioned in the spring of 2010," Jay Carney, the White House press secretary told reporters Monday. "He gave two speeches on mobile technology and digital communications, and had no separate meetings with the company's leadership."
Mr. Carney quickly pointed to similar speeches by members of the Bush White House.
"I don't recall similar criticism from the R.N.C. when senior members of the George W. Bush administration, prior to taking office, had given paid speeches to companies that, in the case of Credit Suisse and UVS, were cited for violations regarding financing in Iran," Mr. Carney noted.
That argument - that the current White House has not done anything that prior administrations have not - has drawn criticism from some watchdog groups (and from Mr. Obama's partisan critics) who point out the administration's early claims to be hewing to a higher standard.
None of the attacks have so far produced the kind of legal jeopardy for any of Mr. Obama's aides that bogged down some of Mr. Bush's aides in the previous administration. Karl Rove wrote in his book about the heavy burden of the investigations that he faced while working in the White House.
(The exception for Mr. Obama's team is Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, who has been found in contempt by the House over his refusal to hand over documents related to a gunrunning investigation.)
Attacks on presidential aides are something of a tradition in Washington, usually led by the Hill leadership of the out-of-power party. Democrats assailed President Bush's advisers much the way Republicans did President Bill Clinton's.
But the intensity of the attacks ratchets up during presidential campaigns. In recent weeks, the Republican National Committee has regularly blasted out e-mails to reporters about the president's staff, urging reporters to write stories.
The committee sent out releases on Tuesday declaring "Iran Connections Known Before Plouffe Speech" in which Reince Priebus, the committee chairman, said that "David Plouffe may be the biggest loophole in the international community's sanctions against Iran."
And on Tuesday, Republicans will hold a conference call to push the concerns about the solar energy company, Solyndra, part of the broad effort to distract the president's top advisers even as they enter the final stretch of the president's re-election campaign.
Here are some of the top Republican targets:
David Plouffe: As the man credited most with engineering Mr. Obama's 2008 victory over Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mr. Plouffe has a big, political target on his back. The story in The Post on Monday provided a perfect opportunity for Republicans.
After spending the first two years of Mr. Obama's administration giving speeches and writing a book, Mr. Plouffe joined the White House staff; he is now the chief political voice inside the West Wing.
Republicans would like nothing more than to take Mr. Plouffe down a peg or two. It is not clear that Mr. Plouffe's speech violated any rules, much less any laws. But coming just weeks before rejoining the White House, it provides fodder for the Republican attacks.
Jim Messina: A senior adviser and deputy chief of staff in the White House, Mr. Messina essentially swapped places with Mr. Plouffe two years ago when he left to become the campaign manager for Mr. Obama's re-election campaign.
Republicans in the House last week released a report detailing e-mail exchanges between the White House and outside groups during the health care debate in 2009 and 2010. Among them, e-mails that Mr. Messina sent from his personal account - not his official White House one.
That prompted Republicans to cry foul, alleging that Mr. Messina might have done so to avoid rules that require all official communication to be preserved and archived. (The White House said those e-mails would be copied into the record.)
Of course, the Republicans do not bring up the millions of White House e-mails that went missing during the 2007 Democratic inquiry of United States attorney firings during Mr. Bush's administration. Or the removal of computer hard drives from Mr. Romney's governor's office at the end of his term in Massachusetts.
Bill Daley: E-mails are also central to the Republican criticism of Mr. Daley, who served as Mr. Obama's chief of staff for a year. Another Republican committee digging through the Solyndra issue found one that hinted at Mr. Daley's knowledge of the company's shaky finances.
"The issue was discussed with the N.E.C. and the chief of staff," the e-mail - released to reporters - said.
It is unclear exactly what that e-mail meant, or how much Mr. Daley might have known about Solyndra. But that has not stopped Republicans from highlighting it. A news release from the Republican National Committee flatly stated that "Bill Daley knew" about the government's reservations about Solyndra.
Other Staffers: Republicans appear to view Solyndra as the key to accusing many other top White House staffers of misdeeds. Republican news releases have accused Rahm Emanuel, the former chief of staff, Jacob Lew, the current chief of staff, and Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser and close friend of Mr. Obama, of knowing more than they have acknowledged.
The idea behind the attacks? Use the questions about Solyndra and the other issues to broadly indict Mr. Obama's White House on the grounds that it is no more transparent or ethical than prior administrations.
Will it work?
Mr. Obama's team has been through rough-and-tumble campaigns before. It is unlikely to wilt in the face of some accusations. But in a race as close as this one might be, anything that diverts attention onto a staffer is probably not welcome.
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1407 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
New Romney Ad Attacks Obama on Welfare Waivers
BYLINE: MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 537 words
HIGHLIGHT: The Romney campaign released a new attack ad Tuesday alleging that the Obama administration is "gutting" the welfare-to-work program, though as governor Mr. Romney advocated a similar approach.
Seven years ago, Mitt Romney joined other governors to urge the federal government to grant "increased waiver authority" to states to experiment with implementation of the federal welfare-to-work program.
But as he runs for president, Mr. Romney and his Republican allies are now accusing President Obama of "gutting" the welfare program by saying it will consider waivers to states.
On Tuesday, Mr. Romney elevated that argument to a new level, releasing a new attack ad accusing Mr. Obama of quietly announcing "a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements."
"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check," the ad says.
Mr. Romney's campaign bases that accusation on concerns expressed by conservatives who say they fear new waivers for states could be used to undermine the federal rules that were overhauled in 1996 to require welfare recipients to work or receive training.
An assessment of Mr. Obama's waiver change by the Heritage Foundation describes it as a "trick to get around work requirements."
"The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama administration clearly guts the law," the Heritage Foundation concluded. "The administration tramples on the actual legislation passed by Congress and seeks to impose its own policy choices - a pattern that has become all too common in this administration."
In a memorandum released Tuesday, Lanhee Chen, Mr. Romney's policy director, writes that Mr. Obama's willingness to grant waivers to states reflects a desire to do away with work requirements that were central to the reforms of the mid-1990s.
"This policy change undermines the very premise of welfare reform," Mr. Chen writes. "It is an insult to Americans on welfare who are looking for an opportunity to build better lives for themselves. And it is a kick in the gut to the millions of hard-working middle-class taxpayers struggling in today's economy."
The president's campaign calls those accusations absurd, noting that the recent requests for waivers came from five states, including two - Utah and Nevada - which are governed by Republicans.
A defense of the president's action on his campaign Web site notes that "states say that their caseworkers spend more time completing paperwork than helping people get work." The waivers are aimed at giving states flexibility to address that problem, Mr. Obama's campaign says.
"Waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved," the campaign writes. "Waivers will not be granted to avoid time limits on when assistance may be provided. The only waivers that will be granted will test approaches that can do a better job at promoting work among families receiving assistance."
The president's campaign notes the letter that Mr. Romney and more than a dozen other governors wrote in 2005, seeking more flexibility.
"By joining some in his party to falsely criticize a policy that empowers states to implement welfare reform, Romney has made it clear that he is far more interested in another political attack against the president than he is in actually finding solutions," Mr. Obama's campaign writes.
Obama Administration Defends Change to Welfare-to-Work Program
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1408 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
Americans for Prosperity Begins $25 Million Anti-Obama Ad Campaign
BYLINE: JEREMY W. PETERS
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 618 words
HIGHLIGHT: Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party organization backed by the Koch brothers, is set to begin a $25 million advertising assault aimed at President Obama, its largest effort to date.
ORLANDO, Fla. - Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party organization backed by the Koch brothers, is set to begin a $25 million advertising assault aimed at President Obama, its largest effort to date.
The ad campaign is the latest example of how independent political groups funded by a small number of wealthy donors are shaping the presidential campaign in key swing states. Conservative groups and "super PACs" have been particularly aggressive, pummeling Mr. Obama on the airwaves as Mitt Romney's campaign waits until after the Republican National Convention -- when it will be legally permitted to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it has raised in recent months -- to ramp up its advertising efforts.
American for Prosperity said that the first of several ads would begin appearing on Wednesday in 11 battleground states, including here in Florida. The campaign will last for three weeks - extending through Labor Day weekend - and includes Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The first ad, titled "President Obama: A One-Term Proposition," hits the president over the rising national debt - an issue that conservative political groups like Americans for Prosperity and American Crossroads, which is run with the help of Karl Rove, believe is particularly powerful with swing voters in this election.
The commercial focuses on an excerpt from an interview Mr. Obama gave to NBC News at the beginning of his term in which he pledged to cut the debt. It was during that interview that he uttered the phrase that his rivals now regularly use against him: "I will be held accountable."
The Obama administration has faulted the Republicans as failing to reach a budget deal to help close the deficit, saying the party's opposition to raising revenues through higher taxes and by closing loopholes is the main reason more progress has not been made on this front. Democrats also note that when President Obama came into office, he inherited a growing budget deficit from President Bush.
The ad takes a relatively straightforward approach, avoiding hyperbole or over-the-top negativity. An image of the national debt clock appears on screen for much of the ad, ticking ever higher. It ends with Mr. Obama's words, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
The ad goes a step further than Americans for Prosperity's previous knocks against the president. Those ads focused on specific policies of the Obama administration like energy, an important distinction under campaign finance rules. This new ad campaign will take aim directly at the president, forgoing the issue ad approach but perhaps opening the group up to greater scrutiny.
The group is a tax-exempt organization whose ads must be primarily issues-focused, although the efforts of such groups have faced increasing scrutiny by advocacy organizations who accuse them of treading into overtly political activities.
This campaign is the first time the group has expressly advocated for Mr. Obama's defeat in an ad. "We don't take this lightly," said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity. "We've always stayed away from express advocacy. But given the president's disastrous record, we felt this was necessary."
Subsequent ads in this campaign will feature the personal stories of Americans who have been hit hard by the economic collapse, Mr. Phillips added.
Walker Receives Prank Call From Koch Impersonator
Ad Watch: Obama Campaign Seeks to Recast Romney as Tax Raiser
Obama Speaks Directly to Camera in New Ad
After Killings at Theater, Campaigns Suspend Their Ads in Colorado
New Romney Video Features Singing Obama
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1409 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
Returning to Campaign Trail, Romney Presses Welfare Attack
BYLINE: TRIP GABRIEL
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 852 words
HIGHLIGHT: Mitt Romney courts middle-class voters by accusing President Obama of watering down welfare laws.
ELK GROVE VILLAGE, Ill. -- Mitt Romney returned to the campaign trail on Tuesday to press a theme that his campaign had hit earlier in the day with a new advertisement, accusing President Obama of gutting the work requirement at the heart of the federal welfare program, a message designed to peel away middle-class votes from the president.
"I hope you understand,'' Mr. Romney said at a factory here, "President Obama in this last few days has tried to reverse that accomplishment by taking the work requirement out of welfare. That is wrong. If I'm president I'll put work back in welfare.''
Mr. Romney seized on a previously little-noticed memorandum issued by the Obama administration last month, which Republicans say does an end run around a bipartisan welfare overhaul passed under President Bill Clinton in 1996 that was widely credited with reducing dependency.
The White House heatedly rejected the charge and called Mr. Romney a hypocrite for airing the ad.
"This advertisement is categorically false, and it is blatantly dishonest," Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told reporters. Mr. Carney said the waiver policy required governors to commit to moving at least 20 percent more people to work.
Mr. Carney assailed Mr. Romney because he, as governor of Massachusetts, supported changes in the law that would have weakened it. "Hypocrisy knows no bounds," Mr. Carney said. "Governor Romney joined with 28 other Republican governors in support of policies that would have eliminated the time limits in the law and allowed people to stay on welfare forever. So perhaps his argument is with his past self - and I suppose that's, should not be a surprise."
White House officials said that the governors who had requested the new waivers included Brian Sandoval, Republican of Nevada, and Gary R. Herbert, Republican of Utah. Both are supporters of Mr. Romney.
In a statement, Mary-Sarah Kinner, a spokeswoman for Mr. Sandoval, agreed with the White House that the governor had requested welfare waivers by submitting "proposals aimed at improving outcomes in our state public assistance programs."
But she took pains in the statement to insist that Mr. Sandoval would never request a "waiver to eliminate welfare work requirements for recipients."
Using the language of Mr. Romney's attacks, Ms. Kinner said that Mr. Sandoval would never seek a "request to weaken work requirements."
"Our goal is to put people to work," she said, "not redefine what work means or ask for these requirements to be removed."
The obscure issue -- a rare venture by Mr. Romney into social policies other than health care -- shows how he and the president are in a tough fight for middle- and working-class voters, with whom this issue may resonate. Mr. Obama has said that Mr. Romney's tax proposals would unfairly burden the middle class, and at a fund-raiser on Monday, he called the proposals "Romneyhood," suggesting that they took from the poor and gave to the rich.
The new line of attack comes as Mr. Romney prepares for a bus tour of swing states beginning Saturday in which he will highlight "the Romney plan for a stronger middle class.''
In seizing on welfare, a theme that aides said Mr. Romney would continue to amplify in the coming days, the candidate invoked Mr. Clinton as a bipartisan figure in an implicit contrast with Mr. Obama, whom Republicans portray as overly liberal.
Mr. Romney also seemed to aim at white blue-collar voters by criticizing welfare without work as an invitation to government dependency and irresponsibility.
"There is nothing better than a good job to help lift a family, help people to provide for themselves and to end this incredible culture of dependency,'' Mr. Romney said here. "We must include more work in welfare.''
The federal welfare program created in 1996, known as Temporary Aid to Needy Families, put a limit on how long families could receive benefits and required recipients to work or prepare for work. The money is distributed by states, whose feet were held to the fire by Washington in order to receive the financing.
An outcry about the administration directive, issued on July 13, was first raised by conservatives, including Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whowrote that the changeswould "bludgeon the letter and intent" of the law.
But in a letter last month to Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan, Ms. Sebelius denied that the directive would water down work requirements. To qualify for a waiver, a state's governor must guarantee to "move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state's past performance,'' she wrote.
Mr. Romney referred to his experience as Massachusetts governor here, saying he fought "time and time again" against the Democratic legislature, which sought to weaken work requirements for welfare recipients.
But Mr. Romney also was among the 29 Republican governors who sought in 2005 to receive waivers for their welfare programs. Ms. Sebelius wrote that some of their requests were "very far-reaching and would not be approved under the department's proposed waivers" issued last month.
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1410 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
Ad Watch: Ad Tries to Link Ex-Worker's Losses to Bain
BYLINE: RICHARD A. OPPEL JR.
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 401 words
HIGHLIGHT: Priorities USA Action, a "super PAC" supporting President Obama, released an advertisement on Tuesday suggesting that Mitt Romney's actions indirectly contributed to a woman's death.
Priorities USA Action, a "super PAC" supporting President Obama, released an advertisement on Tuesday suggesting that Mitt Romney's actions indirectly contributed to a woman's death. Joe Soptic, a former worker at GST Steel in Kansas City, Mo., speaks into the camera, while the ad intersperses shots of a shuttered factory.
Click on a subsection below to jump to a fact check.
YouTube
0:01 Who Closed the Plant?
The ad fails to mention important context. The plant's parent company struggled before Bain bought it, and it is not clear whether the plant would have otherwise remained open after 2001. Other steel manufacturers went bankrupt in the same period. While Mr. Romney, who ran Bain, has taken responsibility for the private equity firm's initial investment in the company, a campaign official said that Mr. Romney had no influence or role in the decision to close the plant in February 2001. The official said that Mr. Romney "wasn't involved in any of the investment or management decisions at Bain Capital after February 1999" when he went on leave to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. Mr. Romney technically retained control of Bain through August 2001, when he formally transferred his shares of Bain's management corporation to the other Bain partners.
0:11 Health Care Coverage
The Romney campaign issued a statement that called the ad "dishonest" and "contemptible" but did not challenge how Mr. Soptic lost his insurance.
0:19 Illness
Mr. Soptic says his wife became ill "a short time after" his family lost health care. But Mr. Soptic lost his job at GST in 2001, and his wife died in June 2006. She was taken to a hospital where doctors found signs of "very advanced cancer," and died two weeks later, according to The Kansas City Star. Mr. Soptic was employed as a custodian for $24,000 a year - about one-third his former salary - but his health plan did not cover his wife, according to an article in January by Reuters. That article reported that when his wife began to lose weight, Mr. Soptic said that he "tried to get her to the doctor and she wouldn't go." Efforts to reach Mr. Soptic were unsuccessful. But CNN reported that he said his wife had insurance through her employer until 2002 or 2003, when she left her job because of an injury.
Scorecard
The super PAC ad compresses time in way that links the closure of the GST plant with Mrs. Soptic's fatal illness.
LOAD-DATE: August 8, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1411 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
She the People
August 7, 2012 Tuesday 11:39 PM EST
Sarah Palin: Mama grizzlies united;
Sarah Palin gives mixed impressions in campaign visit to Missouri: She's more celebrity than statesman.
BYLINE: Diana Reese
LENGTH: 850 words
CLEVELAND, Mo-Sarah Palin did not disappoint.
The crowd cheered and applauded repeatedly during her speech here Friday night, from her opening remarks about "mama grizzlies" on the Missouri state flag to her promise to stop at the local Chick-fil-A for a midnight snack.
It was the first time I'd ever seen Palin in person, and it was well worth the 19-mile drive from my suburban Kansas City home to The Berry Patch, a you-pick blueberry farm near Cleveland, Mo., population 665, in rural Cass County.
Not because I'm a fan or even agree with her ideology, but to see what all the fuss has been about.
Palin was in the Kansas City area to campaign for Sarah Steelman, who's in a tight three-way race in Tuesday's Republican primary for Missouri's U.S. Senate seat. The winner will face Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) in November.
The Steelman Surge BBQ and Picnic featured speeches by Steelman and Palin, followed with Kansas City barbecue served up by the two women to a crowd estimated at 500 or more, many of whom waited an hour or longer.
Palin was there to lend some of her magic to Steelman, who shares not only her conservative views but an independence and willingness to buck the political system. (One of Steelman's goals is to end Congressional pensions, for example.)
A half-dozen or so senatorial candidates have been endorsed by Palin this summer, including last week's winner in Texas, Ted Cruz.
Somehow, Palin has achieved celebrity status since the 2008 election. How many failed vice presidential candidates and former Alaska governors end up with book deals and reality TV shows? With an estimated net worth of $12 million?
When Palin took to the makeshift stage in the middle of a Missouri farm field, she was dressed more for the part of Hollywood celebrity than serious politician. I know someone's going to remind me that just last week, I said it was sexist to focus on the wardrobes of women in politics.
But it was hard for me to take Palin seriously dressed as she was.
First, her shoes: Five-inch wedges. Her black capris weren't quite skin-tight but tight enough, and her t-shirt with its Superman logo (a Steelman campaign shirt emblazoned with "Our freedom. Our fight.") emphasized her figure. She never once removed her oversized sunglasses.
I'm sorry, but I'd like my minister, my doctor and yes, my politicians, to look and dress for their parts.
Once Palin spoke, I couldn't help but think she sometimes sounds like a caricature of herself. Perhaps it's her unique manner of speaking or her overuse of certain phrases.
There were moments during her 15-minute speech that I felt like applauding and there were certainly moments that I groaned.
.
Palin started her speech with a comment about the Missouri's state flag, which does indeed feature three grizzly bears, representing the strength and bravery of the state's citizens. Whether any of the grizzly bears is female, however, is open to debate.
But when Palin talked about Steelman, at age 18, working on Ronald Reagan's campaign in 1976, the former Alaska governor turned to her and said, "You couldn't have been 18, you must've been 2...what a hot mama grizzly you have!"
(Insert major groan here.)
Later, referring again to Reagan's 1976 campaign, Palin said, "Back when Sarah and I were itty bitty babies."
I would think a mama grizzly would be proud of her age.
Meriting applause were her references to Steelman's experience as state treasurer and state senator and her attempts to rein in spending and perks for fellow politicians.
"She's walkin' the walk and not just talkin' the talk," Palin pointed out. Steelman has vowed to cut the deficit and get a balanced budget amendment passed.
And good advice for considering any candidate: Look at the record, not the rhetoric.
The tea party's mantra of cutting spending and limiting the power of the federal government struck a chord with the audience, but never did the subject of jobs and job creation (my personal obsession) come up.
Instead, Palin reiterated Steelman's slogan: "The status quo has got to go."
She said Steelman was not heading to Washington to get invited to "frou-frou chi-chi D.C. cocktail parties." Instead, she wants to "save our country's economy and God-given freedoms" while protecting "the sanctity of human life."
Palin's certainly not part of the "in" crowd of Washington; none other than Dick Cheney recently blasted her for not being an appropriate choice for McCain's running mate in 2008. So far, she's not been invited to speak at the upcoming Republican National Convention.
But out here, just close enough to Kansas City for the metro's media outlets to send camera crews and reporters to cover the event, the people loved Palin.
We'll find out tomorrow if that love has rubbed off on Steelman.
Diana Reese is a freelance journalist in Kansas City. Follow her on Twitter at @dianareese.
Gallery: 8 Important topics Obama, Romney won't discuss much
Sarah Palin keeps picking winners
The Fix: New ad ties Mitt Romney to cancer death
Fact Checker: Harry Reid gets four Pinocchios on Romney's taxes
Romney's V.P. list seems to get shorter
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1412 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 7, 2012 Tuesday 9:19 PM EST
Romney opens up new line of attack against Obama;
Romney launches new attack against Obama
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 598 words
Romney lobs an "Obama-loney" attack against the president, Cardon goes dark in Arizona, and Quayle goes after a Schweikert's mailer saying he "goes both ways."
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your email inbox every day by 5(ish) p.m.!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Five reasons why David Petraeus won't be the VP
Obama and Romney coin competing terms: 'Romney Hood' vs. 'Obamaloney'
The Ohio early voting fight explained
The case for Paul Ryan to be vice president
Fundraiser-in-chief: Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama
Talking "Gospel According to the Fix" at the Newseum!
What the Republican convention speakers say about the GOP
Romney ad says Obama will 'gut welfare reform'
Primary day: Five things watch for in Missouri, Michigan and Washington
Priorities ad ties Mitt Romney to cancer death
Mitt Romney's money edge - and whether it matters
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
*In an interview with Fox News Channel, Mitt Romney lobbed a new attack at President Obama - "Obama-loney," a term he used to describe what he says are untrue things the president has been saying about his record. In the interview, Romney didn't shed any new light on where he is with regard to picking a running mate. "All I can tell you is that by the third night of the Republican Convention I will have made a decision and be ready to communicate it," he said.
*The memo that is the basis of Romney's new attack against Obama on the issue of welfare doesn't completely back his campaign's claim that the president gutted reforms put in place during the 1990s.
*Republican businessman Wil Cardon's Arizona Senate campaign is going dark on the airwaves, just as the crucial early voting period has begun. Cardon's campaign denies that he is winding down his campaign, but it is not an encouraging sign for him, especially with Republican Rep. Jeff Flake up with a seven-figure buy that runs through Election Day.
*Arizona Republican Rep. Ben Quayle's campaign is decrying a mailer from his opponent, fellow Republican Rep. David Schweikert, that his camp says carries sexual connotations. The mailer says Quayle is someone who "goes both ways." Schweikert's camp says the term refers to Quayle's flip-flops on key issues.
*The super PAC associated with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is going up with a $100,000 TV ad buy for former congressman Mark Neumann's Wisconsin Senate campaign. The ad argues that when Neumann was in Congress, he "took on Democrats and Republicans for spending too much."
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
*Obama will campaign in Iowa next week from August 13-15. First Lady Michelle Obama will join the president on the last day of the trip. Obama's trip overlaps with Romney's August 11-14 bus tour, during which time he may announce a running mate.
*Former President Jimmy Carter will address the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte via video, and won't attend the gathering in person. Bill Clinton is the only former president who will attend his party's national convention this year.
*Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's campaign is backing away from her Monday suggestion that Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) should release 20 years worth of tax returns. Warren's campaign says she misspoke, and was asked a question about Romney, who has been pressured by Democrats to release more of his own tax history.
THE FIX MIX:
Early in November.
With Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1413 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 7, 2012 Tuesday 8:12 PM EST
A never-ending sprint for campaign cash
BYLINE: Bill Turque;T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1205 words
Mitt Romney continued his fundraising dominance over President Obama for a third straight month in July, with both campaigns shaping their schedules to pursue a steady stream of donations as the race heads into its final 90 days. The former Massachusetts governor outraised Obama by more than $25 million last month, the campaign announced Monday, collecting just over $101 million. Obama's campaign announced that it brought in $75 million, closing the gap slightly compared with June, when his Republican challenger raised $106 million to Obama's $71 million.
The figures reflect an unprecedented fundraising intensity that has altered the nature of the presidential race. Each candidate devoted a majority of his July events to collecting money, placing each in contact with smaller, elite groups of donors more often than larger public gatherings of voters.
The campaign will continue to look different: With both candidates opting out of accepting federal funds for the post-convention race, as Obama did in 2008, the money chase will probably extend deep into the fall. And the candidates are increasingly holding intimate high-dollar events to raise money for their parties, often coupled with larger events in the same city to raise money for their campaigns.
"The fundraising never stops," said Lawrence Norton, a campaign lawyer and former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission. "Presidential candidates need to spend a vast amount of time, typically at several events a day, raising money and calling donors. I don't know that any of them have a tremendous stomach for it, but they have to do it."
The latest totals don't reflect the vast sums raised by a constellation of outside groups, which are technically independent but aligned with the campaigns. Republican third-party groups, including super PACs, outspent Democratic groups nine to one on broadcast television in July, according to Kantar Media/CMAG. The two leading super PACs supporting Romney had $53 million in the bank at the end of June, compared with less than $3 million for the leading pro-Obama PAC, according to FEC reports. The spending has triggered questions about voter saturation, whether the relentless ad wars in swing states could backfire and the millions of dollars each campaign will spend to sway a relatively small number of undecided voters.
The zeal to keep the cash flowing is evidenced most vividly in the campaigns' daily schedules, which reflect increasing claims on their most precious resource: the candidates' time.
Obama's July schedule showed that he attended 21 campaign fundraisers, compared with 17 campaign-themed public events, usually speeches. Romney held twice as many fundraisers as campaign events in July, attending at least 22 gatherings with contributors.
When the president leaves the White House to meet voters, his speech or other grass-roots event is almost always preceded or followed by a private gathering for wealthy donors. On July 25, a fairly representative day, Obama gave an address via telephone to the national convention of the International Association of Fire Fighters, who were meeting in Philadelphia, then he continued to New Orleans for two fundraisers, followed by an address to the National Urban League convention at the city's Morial Center.
Obama's pursuit continues full speed this week. He went to Connecticut on Monday for two donor gatherings, including a $35,800-per-person affair at the Westport estate of movie executive Harvey Weinstein. The fundraisers are expected to generate about $2.5 million. He will have donor events Tuesday and Wednesday in Colorado, followed by weekend fundraisers in Chicago, including one at his home.
"Over the next three months, the other side will spend more money than ever," Obama said Monday evening at a Stamford hotel reception. "Their economic theory won't sell, so their ads will say the same thing over and over: Economy's not doing well, and it's all Obama's fault."
Romney's quest for campaign cash has taken him far off the trail to both solid-blue and solid-red states. At seven events in California on July 22 and 23, Romney raised a combined $10 million. A week earlier, he collected $2 million in Louisiana hosting a lunch with Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and brought in more than $1.7 million in Jackson, Miss., on the same night. He hosted three events in the Hamptons in New York and two in Wyoming featuring former vice president Richard B. Cheney.
"More candidate time is being spent on fundraising in this presidential election than we've ever seen before," said Michael Toner, who was general counsel for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign and an outside lawyer for John McCain's 2008 bid. "We have a 50-50 nation, and every couple million dollars that you have on hand in October could be the difference in Ohio or Florida or any of these swing states."
Toner added: "In the old days, there would be relatively few fundraising events in the August-to-October time frame. Those days are over."
Obama was a fundraising colossusin 2008 as he transfixed the country with his historic campaign, raising a record $750 million, including $150 million in September. But the terrain has changed dramatically for the incumbent, and some major Democrats are reconciled to the reality that he will be outspent this fall, possibly by a significant margin."There's just too much money on the other side for the Democrats to close the gap," said Democratic National Committee vice chairman Donna Brazile. "We'll have enough to compete, but [the Republicans] will flood the airwaves with misleading advertising."
Speaking with reporters on Air Force One on Monday, Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki repeated the campaign's emphasis on the 98 percent of its donations that were $250 or less - meaning that those donors are under the limit and can continue to contribute.
She acknowledged the long-standing expectation that the president will be outraised but said that the Democrats' heavy investment in field offices, staff and other infrastructure will be more important in the long run.
"Our focus is on ensuring we have the resources, the tools, to create and build the biggest grass-roots campaign in history," Psaki said.
For the Romney camp, the fundraising numbers were the one good news story it had to show for a bumpy July. The campaign and its two combined fundraising committees had $185.9 million in the bank at the end of the month; Obama's team did not announce a cash-on-hand figure.
At the start of July, Romney had $170 million on hand, compared with $144 million for Obama, whose campaign has spent heavily on ads. Just three months before, Obama had a $90 million edge in cash on hand.
"Once again, we see that for many people, this is more than a campaign, it is a cause," said Spencer Zwick, chairman of Romney's fundraising effort. "We are honored to have the support of a broad spectrum of donors - independents, Democrats and Republicans - whose support of Governor Romney shows that he has the needed plan to jump-start our economy and get the country on the right track again."
turqueb@washpost.com
farnamt@washpost.com
David Nakamura and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1414 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 7, 2012 Tuesday 11:28 AM EST
Obama knocked for not visiting Israel;
A pro-Israel group claims President Obama has not visted Israel while traveling "all over the Middle East." Is his record unusual?
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 1222 words
"Over the past four years president Obama has traveled all over the world. He traveled all over the Middle East. But he hasn't found time to visit our ally and friend, Israel. ...As the dangers to Israel mount, where's Obama? Anywhere but Israel."
- Voiceover in television ad by the Emergency Committee for Israel
"As President, Barack Obama has never visited Israel and refuses to recognize Jerusalem as its capital."
--voiceover in new Mitt Romney television campaign ad titled "Cherished Relationship"
As Woody Allen once put it, "80 percent of success is showing up."
A pro-Israel group last week began running ads knocking President Obama for failing to visit Israel. The ad is filled with the sounds of Chinese gongs and Arabian sounds, and postcard-like images showing Obama in his world travels, often arm-in-arm with Arab leaders.
Then, on Sunday, the Romney campaign echoed this charge with its own ad also calling attention to Obama not visiting Israel as president.
Obama visited Israel in 2008, as a presidential candidate, but thus far has not visited the Jewish state during his presidential term. So we wondered how Obama's record compares to other presidents - and whether that matters.
The Facts
The State Department historian's office maintains a list of presidential foreign travels, so we can quickly see which presidents have visited Israel - and when. Here's the list since Israel's founding:
Harry Truman: no visit
Dwight Eisenhower: no visit
John Kennedy: no visit
Lyndon Johnson: no visit
Richard Nixon: sixth year of presidency
Gerald Ford: no visit
Jimmy Carter: third year of presidency
Ronald Reagan: no visit
George H.W. Bush: no visit
Bill Clinton: 4 visits-in the second, third, fourth and sixth years of his presidency
George W. Bush: 2 visits-in the eighth year of his presidency
According to this list, only four of the last 11 presidents visited Israel during their presidency, and two - Nixon and George W. Bush - waited until their second term to make their first trip. In both cases, they visited in the last year of their presidencies (Nixon resigned because of the Watergate affair shortly after his trip.)
Only Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, then, visited Israel in their first term. And of the last four presidents, two never visited Israel, one visited in his second term and one visited in his first term.
Thus Obama's failure to travel to Israel thus far is not unusual at all.
The Emergency Committee ad also suggests that Obama has visited Arab countries rather than Israel. But the State Department records also demonstrate that every president who traveled to Israel had previously visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The ad also incorrectly says Obama has "traveled all over the Middle East." Obama visited just Turkey and Iraq in April 2009, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia in June 2009. The stops in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were barely a few hours long - and Obama has not traveled at all to Middle East in the past three years. (Many of the images in the ad of Obama with Arab leaders are from international confabs held outside the Middle East.)
Indeed, George W. Bush, Clinton and George H.W. Bush were much more well traveled in the Middle East than Obama has been so far in his presidency.
So what's going on here? Why would Obama be knocked for a travel record not much different than other presidents?
Part of it is Obama's trip to Egypt, in which he gave a speech titled "A New Beginning," intending to reach out to the Muslim world. Many Israelis objected to the way he discussed Jewish settlements in the West Bank - and how he appeared to link the creation of Israel to the Holocaust, which goes against the Zionist narrative that Jews have always been a part of the Middle East.
And part of it is the perception that Obama had tried to publicly distance himself from Israel in an effort to pressure its leaders to reach a peace deal. (As our colleague Scott Wilson documented, the tactic did not work out well.)
Other presidents may have had sharp disputes with Israeli leaders, but they still managed to make clear they had an emotional attachment to Israel. George H.W. Bush, for instance, spoke of the "anguish" over tensions with Israel.
"Obama is more like Jimmy Carter minus the biblical interest or attachment, or like Bush 41 minus a strategy," wrote veteran peace negotiator Aaron David Miller in Foreign Policy last month. "My sense is that, if he could get away with it, the president would like to see a U.S.-Israeli relationship that is not just less exclusive, but somewhat less special as well."
In other words, a presidential visit by Obama might have been necessary, if only to show he cared.
"Please pay careful attention to the ad. It doesn't criticize Obama simply for not visiting in his first term. It doesn't make any comparison to visits by other presidents," said Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee. "It criticizes him for traveling to the Middle East repeatedly but intentionally skipping Israel as part of his 'daylight' policy of distancing the U.S. from Israel while pursuing friendly relations with Muslim states. I think the ad is pretty clear on this. We even cited the Scott Wilson piece in the Washington Post, which delves into this in detail."
Meanwhile, the Romney ad also knocks Obama for not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital "as president." As we noted last week, Obama, just like Romney, said Jerusalem was Israel's capital during a 2008 trip there as a presidential candidate. But Obama, following the path set by previous presidents, has held off official recognition by the U.S. government pending the outcome of peace talks. Romney has never pledged that he would direct the State Department to immediately recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, so thus far this is a hollow talking point.
The Pinocchio Test
Pollak is correct that the Emergency Committee ad does not directly say that Obama's travel record was unusual for a president, but it certainly suggests that. While there may have been good political reasons for Obama to make a trip to Jerusalem, the basic frame of the ad is misleading, especially the claim that he's traveled all through the Middle East at the expense of a visit to Israel.
The Romney ad also misleadingly suggests Obama's failure to visit Israel is unusual since it asks, "Who shares your values?"
Obama may have failed the Woody Allen test, but his travel record to Israel is par for the course for American presidents.
Two Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1415 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 7, 2012 Tuesday
Met 2 Edition
A never-ending sprint for campaign cash
BYLINE: Bill Turque;T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1196 words
Mitt Romney continued his fundraising dominance over President Obama for a third straight month in July, with both campaigns shaping their schedules to pursue a steady stream of donations as the race heads into its final 90 days.
The former Massachusetts governor outraised Obama by more than $25 million last month, the campaign announced Monday, collecting just over $101 million. Obama's campaign announced that it brought in $75 million, closing the gap slightly compared with June, when his Republican challenger raised $106 million to Obama's $71 million.
The figures reflect an unprecedented fundraising intensity that has altered the nature of the presidential race. Each candidate devoted a majority of his July events to collecting money, placing each in contact with smaller, elite groups of donors more often than larger public gatherings of voters.
The campaign will continue to look different: With both candidates opting out of accepting federal funds for the post-convention race, as Obama did in 2008, the money chase will probably extend deep into the fall. And the candidates are increasingly holding intimate high-dollar events to raise money for their parties, often coupled with larger events in the same city to raise money for their campaigns.
"The fundraising never stops," said Lawrence Norton, a campaign lawyer and former general counsel to the Federal Election Commission. "Presidential candidates need to spend a vast amount of time, typically at several events a day, raising money and calling donors. I don't know that any of them have a tremendous stomach for it, but they have to do it."
The latest totals don't reflect the vast sums raised by a constellation of outside groups, which are technically independent but aligned with the campaigns. Republican third-party groups, including super PACs, outspent Democratic groups nine to one on broadcast television in July, according to Kantar Media/CMAG. The two leading super PACs supporting Romney had $53 million in the bank at the end of June, compared with less than $3 million for the leading pro-Obama PAC, according to FEC reports.
The spending has triggered questions about voter saturation, whether the relentless ad wars in swing statescould backfire and the millions of dollars each campaign will spend to sway a relatively small number of undecided voters.
The zeal to keep the cash flowing is evidenced most vividly in the campaigns' daily schedules, which reflect increasing claims on their most precious resource: the candidates' time.
Obama's July schedule showed that he attended 21 campaign fundraisers, compared with 17 campaign-themed public events, usually speeches. Romney held twice as many fundraisers as campaign events in July, attending at least 22 gatherings with contributors.
When the president leaves the White House to meet voters, his speech or other grass-roots event is almost always preceded or followed by a private gathering for wealthy donors. On July 25, a fairly representative day, Obama gave an address via telephone to the national convention of the International Association of Fire Fighters, who were meeting in Philadelphia, then he continued to New Orleans for two fundraisers, followed by an address to the National Urban League convention at the city's Morial Center.
Obama's pursuit continues full speed this week. He went to Connecticut on Monday for two donor gatherings, including a $35,800-per-person affair at the Westport estate of movie executive Harvey Weinstein. The fundraisers are expected to generate about $2.5 million. He will have donor events Tuesday and Wednesday in Colorado, followed by weekend fundraisers in Chicago, including one at his home.
"Over the next three months, the other side will spend more money than ever," Obama said Monday evening at a Stamford hotel reception. "Their economic theory won't sell, so their ads will say the same thing over and over: Economy's not doing well, and it's all Obama's fault."
Romney's quest for campaign cash has taken him far off the trail to both solid-blue and solid-red states. At seven events in California on July 22 and 23, Romney raised a combined $10 million. A week earlier, he collected $2 million in Louisiana hosting a lunch with Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and brought in more than $1.7 million in Jackson, Miss., on the same night. He hosted three events in the Hamptons in New York and two in Wyoming featuring former vice president Richard B. Cheney.
"More candidate time is being spent on fundraising in this presidential election than we've ever seen before," said Michael Toner, who was general counsel for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign and an outside lawyer for John McCain's 2008 bid. "We have a 50-50 nation, and every couple million dollars that you have on hand in October could be the difference in Ohio or Florida or any of these swing states."
Toner added: "In the old days, there would be relatively few fundraising events in the August-to-October time frame. Those days are over."
Obama was a fundraising colossusin 2008 as he transfixed the country with his historic campaign, raising a record $750 million, including $150 million in September. But the terrain has changed dramatically for the incumbent, and some major Democrats are reconciled to the reality that he will be outspent this fall, possibly by a significant margin.
"There's just too much money on the other side for the Democrats to close the gap," said Democratic National Committee vice chairman Donna Brazile. "We'll have enough to compete, but [the Republicans] will flood the airwaves with misleading advertising."
Speaking with reporters on Air Force One on Monday, Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki repeated the campaign's emphasis on the 98 percent of its donations that were $250 or less - meaning that those donors are under the limit and can continue to contribute.
She acknowledged the long-standing expectation that the president will be outraised but said that the Democrats' heavy investment in field offices, staff and other infrastructure will be more important in the long run.
"Our focus is on ensuring we have the resources, the tools, to create and build the biggest grass-roots campaign in history," Psaki said.
For the Romney camp, the fundraising numbers were the one good news story it had to show for abumpy July. The campaign and its two combined fundraising committees had $185.9 million in the bank at the end of the month; Obama's team did not announce a cash-on-hand figure.
At the start of July, Romney had $170 million on hand, compared with $144 million for Obama, whose campaign has spent heavily on ads. Just three months before, Obama had a $90 million edge in cash on hand.
"Once again, we see that for many people, this is more than a campaign, it is a cause," said Spencer Zwick, chairman of Romney's fundraising effort. "We are honored to have the support of a broad spectrum of donors - independents, Democrats and Republicans - whose support of Governor Romney shows that he has the needed plan to jump-start our economy and get the country on the right track again."
turqueb@washpost.com
farnamt@washpost.com
David Nakamura and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 7, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1416 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 6, 2012 Monday
Late Edition - Final
Competence Was Linchpin For Both Sides In Tucson Case
BYLINE: By FERNANDA SANTOS; Reporting was contributed by Steven Lee Myers and Michael S. Schmidt from Washington, and Sarah Garrecht Gassen from Tucson.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 768 words
PHOENIX -- From the outset, the case against Jared L. Loughner carried risks for both the prosecution and the defense.
Legal experts said there was ample evidence to prove that Mr. Loughner was the man behind last year's shooting rampage in Tucson, which killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Gabrielle Giffords, a member of the House of Representatives who was holding a constituent event in the parking lot of a supermarket.
But a conviction was far from certain. Even if Mr. Loughner was deemed legally sane to stand trial, jurors could conclude that he was not when the shootings occurred, the legal experts said.
His lawyers were hoping to push for an insanity defense, but if convicted, Mr. Loughner, 23, would most likely face a death sentence. Instead, he is scheduled to plead guilty on Tuesday, after psychiatric evaluations and notes from his court-ordered treatment at a federal psychiatric hospital in Springfield, Mo., established that he was fit to stand trial, according to two people briefed on the developments who were granted anonymity to discuss a legal proceeding.
The plea would bring an abrupt resolution to a case that for some time seemed ensnarled in doubts over Mr. Loughner's mental health and a seemingly steadfast resolve among prosecutors to bring him to trial.
''I think everybody concluded it's a better resolution,'' said A. Bates Butler III, a former federal lawyer in Arizona who has been closely following the case.
A plea deal would carry none of the costs, dangers or emotional toll of a trial, he said, and would probably spare Mr. Loughner from the death penalty.
''He's alive,'' a favorable outcome for his lawyers, Mr. Butler said, ''and from the government's point of view, he'll be off the streets.''
Several of the people who were wounded in the shooting on Jan. 8, 2011, declined to comment on Sunday, saying they would rather wait to see what might happen in court on Tuesday. Others, like Patricia Maisch, a constituent of Ms. Giffords's who was not wounded and wrested a magazine of bullets from Mr. Loughner as he tried to reload his pistol, seemed surprised by the developments.
''I have just heard that news from the media,'' Ms. Maisch wrote in a text message.
Representative Ron Barber, a senior aide to Ms. Giffords who was hurt in the shooting and won a special election in June to fill the remainder of her term after she retired, did not return telephone messages. Ms. Giffords is vacationing in Europe with her husband and did not respond to an e-mail on Sunday.
Three of the shooting's survivors -- Ms. Maisch; Pam Simon, another Giffords aide; and Bill D. Badger, who helped subdue Mr. Loughner -- star in a new advertisement sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition. In the ad, which began airing on Sunday, they urge President Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, to reveal their plans to reduce gun violence.
Mr. Loughner faces 49 criminal charges, including first-degree murder. A 9-year-old girl, Christina-Taylor Green, and a federal judge, John Roll, were among the people killed.
The guilty plea would require approval by Judge Larry A. Burns, who is presiding over the case in Federal District Court in Tucson, and would be likely to result in a life sentence.
Mr. Loughner had pleaded not guilty, but on May 25, 2011, Judge Burns halted the legal proceedings by ruling him incompetent to stand trial. Psychiatrists who had interviewed Mr. Loughner said he had random and disorganized thoughts, offered nonsensical answers to questions and appeared to suffer from schizophrenia. He delivered a loud and angry rant that day before officers dragged him out of the courtroom.
Four months later, he sat still and expressionless during a hearing that lasted seven hours, seemingly under the effects of the psychotropic drugs he had been forced to take. The psychologist who has been treating him, Christina Pietz, said at the time that Mr. Loughner was still not fit for trial, but that she thought he could improve if his treatment proceeded.
The hearing on Tuesday had been scheduled for weeks as just another step toward a trial. On July 19, though, Judge Burns ordered the defense to turn over the personal notes kept by Dr. Pietz on Mr. Loughner's treatment. Defense lawyers had argued that the notes could ''inform the government's decision whether to seek the death penalty,'' according to Judge Burns's ruling.
Before a guilty plea is accepted, federal court rules require that Mr. Loughner answer questions from the judge in open court to make sure he understands his decision.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1417 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 6, 2012 Monday 11:39 PM EST
White House refuses to back Reid's tax attack;
Jay Carney won't join Reid's tax attack against Romney, Mica cries foul over an Adams ad, and First Lady Michelle Obama will sit down with Jay Leno.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 637 words
Jay Carney won't join Reid's tax attack against Romney, Mica cries foul over an Adams ad, and first lady Michelle Obama will sit down with Jay Leno.
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your e-mail inbox every day by 5 (ish) p.m!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Why Mitt Romney is fighting a losing battle against Harry Reid - in 2 charts
Cheney walks back remark about Palin pick being 'a mistake'
Mitt Romney's morning errands: A #Fixcaption contest
Where do Ron and Rand Paul fit in at the GOP convention?
'America the beautiful': The most memorable ad of the 2012 campaign (so far)?
Romney outraised Obama in July, $101.3 million to $75 million
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. 'debilitated by depression,' wife says
Mitt Romney's Harry Reid problem
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
*White House press secretary Jay Carney refused to line up behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's claim that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes for 10 years, saying "only Sen. Reid knows his source." But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is vouching for Reid, saying the Nevada Democrat "made a statement that is true." Reid is still not backing down from his claim and Republicans are trying to link.
*Romney's presidential campaign officially announced a four-day bus tour he will take through Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio from Aug. 11-14. But the Romney camp did not provide any specifics beyond the dates of the trip and states to which he is traveling. The tour could be used by Romney to roll out his VP running mate choice.
*Following a shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the Romney campaign is suspending events in the state and the Republican National Committee and the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future have pulled their ads from the air.
*In Florida, Republican Rep. John Mica's campaign is urging TV stations to pull an ad from fellow Republican Rep. Sandy Adams that it says runs afoul of House ethics rules barring recordings of floor proceedings from being used for political purposes. Mica and Adams will face off in one of August's five member-versus-member primaries.
*Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's first trip to Malawi wrapped up on a rough note whena swarm of bees encountered Clinton and her team at the airport. "People could be seen running away to keep cover as the Secretary of State swiftly boarded her plane to avoid any stings," an eyewitness told the Nyasa Times.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
*First lady Michelle Obama will make her third appearance on the "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" on Monday, Aug. 13, to talk about life in the White House and what it was like to lead the U.S. Olympic delegation.
*Gallup finds that 92 percent of voters who say they voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 are backing Romney while 86 percent of voters who say they voted for President Obama in 2008 are supporting the Democrat once again. Obama voters are switching over to the other side at nearly twice the rate of McCain voters, but for the most part, voters are staying loyal to their 2008 party preferences.
*Obama will raise money in Connecticut this evening with movie producer Harvey Weinstein and his wife, fashion designer Georgina Chapman, at an event where guests are paying $38,500 apiece.
*Michigan Republican Senate candidate Clark Durant is getting some eleventh-hour help from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who endorsed him today. But it might be too little too late for Durant, who is trying to upset former congressman Pete Hoekstra on Tuesday. Huckabee previously backed Gary Glenn, who is no longer in the race.
THE FIX MIX:
It's never a bad time for a hug.
With Rachel Weiner and Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1418 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 6, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
Is silver spoon just a red herring?
BYLINE: Manuel Roig-Franzia
SECTION: Style; Pg. C01
LENGTH: 1577 words
We want the pony. We want the Jet Ski. We want the big house on the beach, the big account at the bank (Swiss or otherwise), the big car in the garage (especially if that garage comes equipped with a super-cool elevator that lifts the car from one floor to the next.)
Face it, we want what Mitt Romney has - we want to be rich. Americans don't just want to be rich - when we're young and looking ahead at our lives, many of us really believe we will become rich. It's in our national DNA. An American Dreamscape of private jets and bubbly. All of which makes this political season's obsession with wealth even more intriguing. How come it feels a bit like R-I-C-H is now a dirty, dirty word? That notion - wealth as political liability - is spliced into each tut-tutting reaction to each tin-eared utterance from Romney, a candidate who wants so badly to turn his financial success into a political asset but keeps stumbling into class warfare minefields. You've heard the disapproving chatter. How dare he defend himself by challenging Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet! How dare he boast that his wife has two Cadillacs! How dare he say he didn't make much in speaking fees when he actually made more than $370,000!
Well, here's a question for you: Wouldn't you like to be able to casually throw around $10,000 bets, own a couple of Caddies, haul in a few hundred grand to give a few speeches? And would it matter to you whether you made your dough building widgets or buying and selling shares in a widget-manufacturing company, hitting a baseball or collecting an inheritance?
President Obama keeps picking away at this perceived Romney vulnerability, speechifying about inequality, pressing to tax the wealthy and spare the middle class and reminding listeners that he wasn't born with "a silver spoon" in his mouth, a not-so-subtle memory-jogger that Romney was born into a well-heeled family.
"Obviously, it's trying to play on the anger of the nation about the economy," says Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and author of the book "Governing America: The Revival of Political History." "But it's a risk for Obama. The Republicans have always wanted to say Obama is left of center. The risk Obama faces is that this plays into that." Certainly, wealth hasn't dissuaded Americans from choosing their leaders in the past, from George Washington, the Virginia agricultural baron, to George W. Bush, the Texas privileged son. Congress is filled with the wealthy. More than two-thirds of U.S. senators and nearly half of Congress as a whole are millionaires, according to an analysis released late last year by the Center for Responsive Politics. Rare is the political bigwig without a big account balance.
Americans aren't just inclined to elect the wealthy. They're also generally okay with the existence of an upper class, and they have been for some time. But it goes deeper than that. They also think we're better off for having economic elites. Twenty-two years ago, Gallup asked a sampling of Americans whether they thought the United States benefited from having a class of rich people. Sixty-two percent answered "yes." The firm asked the same question in May, and almost the same percentage - 63 percent - answered in the affirmative. A majority of Republicans feel this way, but so do majorities, albeit smaller majorities, of Democrats and independents. Men and women, too. Conservatives, moderates and liberals? Them too.
That sentiment survived Occupy Wall Street, and it outlasted the "too big to fail" travails of the 2008 credit market meltdown. It has persisted through recessions, a yo-yo stock market and Enron. How could this be?
It's all about dreaming. "A lot of Americans want to be rich themselves," says Frank Newton, Gallup's editor-in-chief.
And they believe they will be, too. Nearly half the 18-to-29-year-olds surveyed envisioned becoming rich, despite all the evidence to the contrary. "There is this view, this myth of mobility," says Edward Nathan Wolff, a New York University economist who has tracked rising income inequality in the United States.
A raft of studies is chipping away at the image of the United States as a place where upward mobility is attainable for all. A Pew study showed that more than 40 percent of Americans born into families in the bottom fifth of the income scale remain there as adults and 70 percent of those children never make it to the middle class. Yet, when asked, Americans tend to cling to the notion that anything is possible for them.
"This is part of American culture," Zelizer says. "Even when it has nothing to do with reality."
And so, when wealth seems within reach, Americans "don't necessarily have anger toward someone who is rich. They want the kind of success that Romney's had," Zelizer says.
At least, they do in a purely monetary, giant-numbers-in-the-account-book sense. But there's more to this puzzle. If Americans are so chill about the rich being rich, then why is Romney still getting whacked over his moolah? It's not like Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor whose vast wealth could almost make Romney appear the pauper, gets this kind of treatment - though it would be interesting to see how his billions would get spun if he decided to run for national office one day.
Bloomberg's got a daughter who is an avid equestrian (and starred in a documentary called "Born Rich"), but - for now, at least - he mostly gets a pass, aside from the snickers about his fancy travel habits.
Yet, poor (or not so poor) Romney, whose campaign has said he's worth about $200 million, has a wife who is into "dressage," that fancy prancing equestrian sport, and gets lampooned. Rafalca, Ann Romney's horse, might be one of the most famous athletes in the London Olympics. Rafalca debuted Thursday with a performance that the first lady hopeful - who rides as therapy for her multiple sclerosis - said she was "thrilled" to watch. (Not unexpectedly, the liberal group MoveOn.org commemorated the occasion with a mocking ad accusing the Romneys of spending nearly twice the average American's annual income for the horse's upkeep while angling to repeal the Obama administration's health-care law and ship U.S. jobs overseas.)
Romney squirms when the subject comes up, even telling NBC's Brian Williams that he doesn't know when his wife's horse is competing, as if he lives in terror that showing up at an event associated with the upper class would make him look like what everyone knows he is: a rich guy. Can you imagine blowing off your wife's or husband's Olympic event?
Little in the ambit of Romney spending escapes scrutiny, whether it's the $55,000 "Phantom Park" car elevator that a designer claims the Republican candidate is ordering for his La Jolla digs in California or the speedboat he chauffeurs the grandkids in during lake house vacations.The twist here may be the way Romney got rich. He didn't do it like Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, perfecting a manufacturing process or inventing revolutionary products. He did it in the more opaque realm of high finance, the buying and selling of stocks and bonds, companies and factories.
And here's where Obama seems to be placing his bet with all those hundreds of millions in campaign donations. You see, as the pollster Newton points out, "Americans believe it is appropriate to have higher income if you put effort in, if you work hard." Turn Romney into an insider who made his wad callously moving pieces around some corporate chess board and, poof, all that American admiration for gumption could vanish. Or at least that seems to be the calculus. Make Romney one of them - the faceless powers-that-be - instead of one of us, the kids who made good.
Pew researchers have detected this anti-gilded class sentiment, discovering in a survey that 77 percent of Americans think too much power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations.
But this business about attacking a candidate because he was big in business isn't without perils, and Romney seems to sense that or, at a minimum, to sense that he's got some rehab work to do. On Piers Morgan's CNN show the other night, he protested against the gibes, repeating the word success like a mantra of American dreaming.
"There are people who are trying to attack success and are trying to attack our success. That's not going to be successful," the successful-businessman-turned-Republican-presidential-aspirant said. "When you attack success, you have less of it. And that's what we've seen in our economy over the last few years. Dividing America based on who has money and who hasn't. Who is successful and who is less successful. That is not the American way."
Obama wants to splice it further. And so, as Zelizer observes, the president seeks to define Romney as someone who became wealthy from " 'vulture capitalism' versus 'capitalism,' someone who didn't produce but made money through money. That could work, especially in the post-2008 climate. That said, the fact that so many middle-class Americans are invested in the stock market (by historical comparison) makes this kind of wealth-generation more popular and, once again, can easily backfire on Obama."
Even those who can't have pretty ponies are looking for someone to tell them that they'll have pretty 401(k)s. In their eyes, surely, there's a dirtier word than R-I-C-H, and that's P-O-O-R.
Roigfranzia@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1419 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 6, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
A contest that, so far, defies nature
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 813 words
Mitt Romney shouldwin the presidential election this November. While that may seem, on its face, like a somewhat controversial idea, consider the following:
l The unemployment rate has been over 8 percent for 42 straight months, a streak unparalleled in American history. No post-World War II president has ever been reelected with unemployment over 7.2 percent - meaning that if President Obama wins, he will be making history. l Pessimism abounds. In a July Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than six in 10 people said the country was headed in the wrong direction. A similar six in 10 said the economy was getting worse, not better, in Gallup polling last week.
l Majorities disapprove of how Obama has handled the economy, which is, without question, the central issue of the election. In that July Post-ABC poll, 44 percent approved of how Obama was dealing with the economy, while 54 percent disapproved. More problematic for the incumbent: Forty-one percent strongly disapproved of the job he is doing on the economy, while only 21 percent strongly approved.
l Obama has spent more than $400 million, according to a New York Times analysis, on his reelection campaign but almost certainly will be outspent - and probably heavily outspent - by the former Massachusetts governor and his allies in the 92 days between now and the Nov. 6 election.
And yet, despite all of those factors clearly working against him, Obama is either statistically tied or ahead in key swing-state polling - suggesting that writing his political obituary today is decidedly premature.
So, what gives? Call it the political equivalent of the nature-vs.-nurture debate. Put more simply: The backdrop on which the campaign is fought matters (nature), but so, too, does the kind of race each candidate runs (nurture).
At the moment, Obama is winning the nurture side of the equation - thanks to a series of tactical victories that have put Romney and his team on its heels. From the debate over when Romney totally cut ties to Bain Capital to the (ongoing) debate over whether he should release more of his tax returns to the negative press surrounding Romney's trip to Britain, Israel and Poland last week, the narrative of the campaign over the past month has worked heavily in Obama's favor. Add to that Obama's ad onslaught against Romney - has anyone in a swing state by now not heard the former governor awkwardly singing "America the Beautiful"? - and it's clear that the incumbent has been winning the day-to-day battle.
The question is how much winning the nurture side of the debate actually matters. Republicans are quick to note that for much of August during the 2008 campaign - and even into the two parties' national conventions - their side was winning the tactical fight, thanks in large part to the famous/infamous ad run by Sen. John McCain that labeled Obama an international celebrity on par with Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.
Those day-to-day wins didn't matter once the world economy seized and McCain uttered his "fundamentals of our economy are strong" line. Political nature took over, pushing Obama to a historic victory that included wins in longtime Republican strongholds such as Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia.
Romney strategists and allies insist that 2012 is another year when political nature will win out over political nurture. (Although it's worth noting that they would less readily concede that they are losing the day-to-day campaign to Obama.) For all of the Obama team's attempts to turn this election into a devil-you-know-vs.-devil-you-don't choice, the Romney team argues it will ultimately fail because voters see this election as about one thing and only one thing: Obama's ability (or inability) to improve the economy.
Who's right? The next six weeks will be a telling indicator.
If Obama and the nurture side of the argument are right, the body blows the president's campaign team has been landing on Romney for the last two months will start to pay political dividends as the former governor's image is tarnished beyond repair for undecided voters.
If Romney and the nature side are correct, the Republican will begin to pull into the lead as undecided voters, who care only about Obama's performance on the economy, look at the macro political picture and conclude it's time for someone new.
Of course, things can change. Romney can turn the tide in the tactical end of the campaign, beginning to win the daily back-and-forth of the race. Or Obama can hope that the July job creation numbers are a leading indicator of an economic improvement that will allow him to argue that his policies are starting to work.
For now, though, it's Romney's nature argument vs. Obama's nurture argument.
chris.cillizza@wpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1420 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 6, 2012 Monday 8:09 PM EST
Mitt Romney's Harry Reid problem;
Why the Senate Majority Leader's unsubstantiated charge against Romney regarding his taxes is a political problem for the Republican nominee.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1261 words
Talk of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's allegation that Mitt Romney had not paid any taxes at all for 10 years dominated the Sunday talk show circuit as Republicans denounced the (still-unsubstantiated) charge.
Republican National Committee Chairman noting that the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate had still not made public who allegedly told him about Romney's tax history. (Romney, for his part, has said he paid taxes every year.) Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, the head of the Republican Governors Association, called Reid's allegation a "reckless and slanderous charge".
The amping up of Republican rhetoric amounts to a recognition that no matter how unfair they believe Reid's charge is (and they believe it is incredibly unfair), the allegation is churning up the tax return issue and needs to be pushed back on - hard.
At its root, the problem for Romney on this matter is that he and Reid are simply not playing by the same set of rules. Here's why.
1. Reid isn't up for re-election until 2016 (if he even decides to run again, since he will be 76 years old that year). 2. His allegation against Romney only strengthens his hand among his Democratic colleagues - in and out of the Senate. 3. He's not running for president and, therefore, isn't subject to the same sort of transparency demands that Romney is. 4. He's far less well-known than Romney, meaning that by engaging Reid, the Republican presidential nominee is punching down in a big way.
"He's fearless and shameless," said Jon Ralston, the leading political journalist in the state of Nevada and a man who has watched Reid's career closely. "The most dangerous man is one who does not care."
The shaming of Reid, which is clearly what Republicans - Romney included - are now set on doing, then, likely won't work. Several close Reid allies insist he simply will never reveal the alleged source of the Romney tax information and, they argue, politically speaking he won't ever have to, since the allegation - as we noted above - does little harm to Reid's political career.
In politics, a charge unanswered is a charge believed. It's why Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's (D) slow response to charges regarding his service in Vietnam - allegations Kerry clearly believed were beneath contempt - wound up playing a major role in his defeat in the 2004 presidential election.
"I just believe that this hurts Romney more," said one senior Republican strategist who follows Nevada politics closely. "If he doesn't produce his tax returns, this will probably continue. If he finally relents, then Reid just says 'thank you.'"
Reid is among the most Machiavellian politicians operating today (or ever). He picked this fight with Romney on purpose, knowing that the Republican nominee was - due to the rules of politics - fighting with at least one hand tied behind his back.
And it's why, whether you like what Reid is doing or not, he's created a problem that Romney and the Republican Party have to figure out how to handle - and quickly.
Romney raised $101.3 million in July: Romney kept up his campaign's torrid fundraising past last month, pulling in more than $100 million in July.
The $101.3 million raised between Romney's campaign, the RNC and a joint fundraising committee between the two is slightly less than the $106 million Romney raised in June, but unless Obama's campaign significantly ramped up its fundraising efforts, it's likely to extend Romney's cash advantage.
Romney led Obama by about $25 million in cash on hand at the start of July, and he increased his bankroll from $170 million to $185.9 million at the end of the month.
Obama hasn't released his July numbers yet.
Obama adviser took money from group tied to Iran: Top Obama aide David Plouffe accepted $100,000 in speaking fees from a company with ties to Iran, the Post's Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten report today.
Plouffe earned $100,000 in 2010 for two engagements in Nigeria with a subsidiary of MTN Group, a South Africa-based telecommunications company that has worked with a state-owned Iranian telecommunications firm.
A White House spokesman noted that the company has only come under scrutiny since Plouffe delivered the speeches. Plouffe was also a private citizen at the time, though he has since joined the president's White House team.
"At the time, not even the most zealous watchdog group on this issue had targeted the Iranian business interests of the host's holding company," said spokesman Eric Schultz. "Criticism of Mr. Plouffe now for issues and controversies that developed only years later is simply misplaced."
GOP convention headline speakers announced: Seven headline speakers have been announced for the Republican National Committee, including Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R).
Scott will be joined by 2008 GOP nominee John McCain, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez.
Many of those names have been tossed around as potential vice presidential picks for Romney (albeit unlikely ones); their speaking slots mean they can probably be crossed off the list.
Scott's selection is particularly interesting given his long-struggling approval ratings (36 percent in a recent Quinnipiac poll) and his loose ties to the party establishment. But given that the event was in his home state, his role was probably unavoidable.
Fixbits:
A new Obama ad hits Romney for wanting to defund Planned Parenthood.
Romney doesn't want the Federal Reserve to enact a new stimulus program.
A new Romney ad hits Obama for not visiting Israel.
Clint Eastwood, whose Super Bowl ad for Chrysler was derided by conservatives as essentially a campaign ad for Obama, endorses Romney.
McDonnell writes an op-ed criticizing Obama on welfare-to-work.
Romney says the wealthy will be fine no matter who wins the 2012 election.
A new poll of the Missouri GOP Senate primary from Democratic-leaning automated pollster Public Policy Polling shows businessman John Brunner leading a tight race, 35 percent to 30 percent for Rep. Todd Akin and 25 percent for former state treasurer Sarah Steelman.
Americans United for Change and AFSCME are going up with a $280,000 ad campaign against five Republicans: Sen. Dean Heller (Nev.) and Senate candidate Rep. Denny Rehberg (Mont.), and Reps. Steve King (Iowa), Jim Renacci (Ohio) and Dan Lungren (Calif.). The ads focus on the Bush tax cuts.
Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) says Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) would be a good pick for Romney's running mate.
Must-reads:
"Obama associate got $100,000 fee from affiliate of firm doing business with Iran" - Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, Washington Post
"Record Spending by Obama's Camp Shrinks Coffers" - Nicholas Confessore and Jo Craven McGinty, New York Times
"Presidential race becomes a question of nature vs. nurture" - Chris Cillizza, Washington Post
"Romney's heavy August workload" - Dan Balz, Washington Post
"U.S. Officials Brace for Huge Task of Operating Health Exchanges" - Robert Pear, New York Times
"GOP freshmen run away from incumbency" - Alex Isenstadt, Politico
"Campaigns drown supporters with fundraising e-mails in the race for cash" - Dan Eggen, Washington Post
"Romney, the rich and the delicate politics of wealth and class" - Manuel Roig-Franzia, Washington Post
"In Kansas, Conservatives Vilify Fellow Republicans" - John Eligon, New York Times
"The Square and the Flair" - Noam Scheiber, New Republic
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1421 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 6, 2012 Monday 5:48 PM EST
'America the beautiful': The most memorable ad of the 2012 campaign (so far)?;
Katy Perry has nothing on Mitt Romney when it comes to getting their songs on the air.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 535 words
Katy Perry has nothing on Mitt Romney when it comes to getting their songs on the air.
The GOP presidential candidate's dulcet tones, it seems, have been playing in great rotation on cable TV stations for ages now via the Obama campaign's "America the Beautiful" ad, which features Romney singing the song (poorly) over scenes of the far-off places where he has bank accounts and where Bain Capital outsourced jobs.
The ad, which went off the air Monday, strikes us as perhaps the most memorable of the cycle so far, if not necessarily the most impactful.
The reason? It's utterly unavoidable.
To The Fix, it seemed as though the ad has been on the air for months. (Maybe we just watch a lot of "Real Housewives.") In fact, the campaign initially released it less than four weeks ago. But in addition to its heavy airplay, it has also been viewed more than 2.2 million times on YouTube - the most-viewed campaign ad on Obama's YouTube channel.
An Obama campaign aide said the ad hasn't run for longer than many national cable buys and that's it has now been replaced.
"It's a little slower in getting rotated out than broadcast TV," the aide said. "This is not sort of a case where we're intentionally stretching it out."
But the ad's four-week run has been notable.
In advertising, half the battle is simply getting people to tune in and process the information that's being broadcast - something that's harder and harder in the age of TiVo, computers, etc. The reason this ad works is because it's just so hard to ignore that voice singing that song over and over again.
It's why campaigns so regularly employ jingles and campaign songs (from "I Like Ike" to "Mike, Mike, Mike Weinstein!"); they get stuck in your head. It's easy to gloss over an ad about in-the-weeds Bain stuff or Romney's tax returns; you can't ignore a middle-aged guy with (apparently) no formal singing lessons belting out such a familiar tune.
Second, the ad plays into the Obama campaign's overall message, which is one of Romney being out of touch with average Americans. The scenes of Cayman Islands beaches and a Swiss flag accompany headlines of Romney's reported outsourcing and offshore accounts quite nicely. The ad is visually striking - if less so than the audio.
The ad is also one of the most-controversial of the cycle so far.
Republicans allege that it's an under-handed attempt to play class warfare and make fun of a guy who was, after all, doing something patriotic.
"It is a mean-spirited ad designed to ridicule someone who is trying to do something nice - albeit he's not a great singer," said GOP media consultant Dan Hazelwood. "The purpose of this ad is not to affect swing voters one iota. It is to instill a visceral hatred into the Democrat base to motivate them to get out and vote."
Republicans also argue that the ad could backfire. After all, this is a guy singing a patriotic song over and over again on people's TVs. And if the Obama campaign's use of it turns people off - or if they they only remember the GOP nominee singing a patriotic song - maybe that could even help Romney.
We'll never know for sure how well it has worked.
But for the last month of the campaign, this ad has defined the air wars.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1422 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 6, 2012 Monday
Suburban Edition
Is silver spoon just a red herring?
BYLINE: Manuel Roig-Franzia
SECTION: STYLE; Pg. C01
LENGTH: 1568 words
We want the pony. We want the Jet Ski. We want the big house on the beach, the big account at the bank (Swiss or otherwise), the big car in the garage (especially if that garage comes equipped with a super-cool elevator that lifts the car from one floor to the next.)
Face it, we want what Mitt Romney has - we want to be rich. Americans don't just want to be rich - when we're young and looking ahead at our lives, many of us really believe we will become rich. It's in our national DNA. An American Dreamscape of private jets and bubbly. All of which makes this political season's obsession with wealth even more intriguing. How come it feels a bit like R-I-C-H is now a dirty, dirty word?
That notion - wealth as political liability - is spliced into each tut-tutting reaction to each tin-eared utterance from Romney, a candidate who wants so badly to turn his financial success into a political asset but keeps stumbling into class warfare minefields. You've heard the disapproving chatter. How dare he defend himself by challenging Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet! How dare he boast that his wife has two Cadillacs! How dare he say he didn't make much in speaking fees when he actually made more than $370,000!
Well, here's a question for you: Wouldn't you like to be able to casually throw around $10,000 bets, own a couple of Caddies, haul in a few hundred grand to give a few speeches? And would it matter to you whether you made your dough building widgets or buying and selling shares in a widget-manufacturing company, hitting a baseball or collecting an inheritance?
President Obamakeeps picking away at this perceived Romney vulnerability, speechifying about inequality, pressing to tax the wealthy and spare the middle class and reminding listeners that he wasn't born with "a silver spoon" in his mouth, a not-so-subtle memory-jogger that Romney was born into a well-heeled family.
"Obviously, it's trying to play on the anger of the nation about the economy," says Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and author of the book "Governing America: The Revival of Political History." "But it's a risk for Obama. The Republicans have always wanted to say Obama is left of center. The risk Obama faces is that this plays into that."
Certainly, wealth hasn't dissuaded Americans from choosing their leaders in the past, from George Washington, the Virginia agricultural baron, to George W. Bush, the Texas privileged son. Congress is filled with the wealthy. More than two-thirds of U.S. senators and nearly half of Congress as a whole are millionaires, according to an analysis released late last year by the Center for Responsive Politics. Rare is the political bigwig without a big account balance.
Americans aren't just inclined to elect the wealthy. They're also generally okay with the existence of an upper class, and they have been for some time. But it goes deeper than that. They also think we're better off for having economic elites. Twenty-two years ago, Gallup asked a sampling of Americans whether they thought the United States benefited from having a class of rich people. Sixty-two percent answered "yes." The firm asked the same question in May, and almost the same percentage - 63 percent - answered in the affirmative. A majority of Republicans feel this way, but so do majorities, albeit smaller majorities, of Democrats and independents. Men and women, too. Conservatives, moderates and liberals? Them too.
That sentiment survived Occupy Wall Street, and it outlasted the "too big to fail" travails of the 2008 credit market meltdown. It has persisted through recessions, a yo-yo stock market and Enron. How could this be?
It's all about dreaming. "A lot of Americans want to be rich themselves," says Frank Newton, Gallup's editor-in-chief.
And they believe they will be, too. Nearly half the 18-to-29-year-olds surveyed envisioned becoming rich, despite all the evidence to the contrary. "There is this view, this myth of mobility," says Edward Nathan Wolff, a New York University economist who has tracked rising income inequality in the United States.
A raft of studies is chipping away at the image of the United States as a place where upward mobility is attainable for all. A Pew study showed that more than 40 percent of Americans born into families in the bottom fifth of the income scale remain there as adults and 70 percent of those children never make it to the middle class. Yet, when asked, Americans tend to cling to the notion that anything is possible for them.
"This is part of American culture," Zelizer says. "Even when it has nothing to do with reality."
And so, when wealth seems within reach, Americans "don't necessarily have anger toward someone who is rich. They want the kind of success that Romney's had," Zelizer says.
At least, they do in a purely monetary, giant-numbers-in-the-account-book sense. But there's more to this puzzle. If Americans are so chill about the rich being rich, then why is Romney still getting whacked over his moolah? It's not like Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor whose vast wealth could almost make Romney appear the pauper, gets this kind of treatment - though it would be interesting to see how his billions would get spun if he decided to run for national office one day.
Bloomberg's got a daughter who is an avid equestrian (and starred in a documentary called "Born Rich"), but - for now, at least - he mostly gets a pass, aside from the snickers about his fancy travel habits.
Yet, poor (or not so poor) Romney, whose campaign has said he's worth about $200 million, has a wife who is into "dressage," that fancy prancing equestrian sport, and gets lampooned. Rafalca, Ann Romney's horse, might be one of the most famous athletes in the London Olympics. Rafalca debuted Thursday with a performance that the first lady hopeful - who rides as therapy for her multiple sclerosis - said she was "thrilled" to watch. (Not unexpectedly, the liberal group MoveOn.org commemorated the occasion with a mocking ad accusing the Romneys of spending nearly twice the average American's annual income for the horse's upkeep while angling to repeal the Obama administration's health-care law and ship U.S. jobs overseas.)
Romney squirms when the subject comes up, even telling NBC's Brian Williams that he doesn't know when his wife's horse is competing, as if he lives in terror that showing up at an event associated with the upper class would make him look like what everyone knows he is: a rich guy. Can you imagine blowing off your wife's or husband's Olympic event?
Little in the ambit of Romney spending escapes scrutiny, whether it's the $55,000 "Phantom Park" car elevator that a designer claims the Republican candidate is ordering for his La Jolla digs in California or the speedboat he chauffeurs the grandkids in during lake house vacations.
The twist here may be the way Romney got rich. He didn't do it like Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, perfecting a manufacturing process or inventing revolutionary products. He did it in the more opaque realm of high finance, the buying and selling of stocks and bonds, companies and factories.
And here's where Obama seems to be placing his bet with all those hundreds of millions in campaign donations. You see, as the pollster Newton points out, "Americans believe it is appropriate to have higher income if you put effort in, if you work hard." Turn Romney into an insider who made his wad callously moving pieces around some corporate chess board and, poof, all that American admiration for gumption could vanish. Or at least that seems to be the calculus. Make Romney one of them - the faceless powers-that-be - instead of one of us, the kids who made good.
Pew researchers have detected this anti-gilded class sentiment, discovering in a survey that 77 percent of Americans think too much power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations.
But this business about attacking a candidate because he was big in business isn't without perils, and Romney seems to sense that or, at a minimum, to sense that he's got some rehab work to do. On Piers Morgan's CNN show the other night, he protested against the gibes, repeating the word success like a mantra of American dreaming.
"There are people who are trying to attack success and are trying to attack our success. That's not going to be successful," the successful-businessman-turned-Republican-presidential-aspirant said. "When you attack success, you have less of it. And that's what we've seen in our economy over the last few years. Dividing America based on who has money and who hasn't. Who is successful and who is less successful. That is not the American way."
Obama wants to splice it further. And so, as Zelizer observes, the president seeks to define Romney as someone who became wealthy from " 'vulture capitalism' versus 'capitalism,' someone who didn't produce but made money through money. That could work, especially in the post-2008 climate. That said, the fact that so many middle-class Americans are invested in the stock market (by historical comparison) makes this kind of wealth-generation more popular and, once again, can easily backfire on Obama."
Even those who can't have pretty ponies are looking for someone to tell them that they'll have pretty 401(k)s. In their eyes, surely, there's a dirtier word than R-I-C-H, and that's P-O-O-R.
Roigfranzia@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1423 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 6, 2012 Monday
Suburban Edition
A contest that, so far, defies nature
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 789 words
Mitt Romneyshould win the presidential election this November.
While that may seem, on its face, like a somewhat controversial idea, consider the following:
l Theunemployment rate has been over 8 percent for 42 straight months, a streak unparalleled in American history. No post-World War II president has ever been reelected with unemployment over 7.2 percent - meaning that if President Obama wins, he will be making history.
l Pessimism abounds. In aJuly Washington Post-ABC News poll, more than six in 10 people said the country was headed in the wrong direction. A similar six in 10 said the economy was getting worse, not better, in Gallup polling last week.
l Majorities disapprove of howObama has handled the economy, which is, without question, the central issue of the election. In that July Post-ABC poll, 44 percent approved of how Obama was dealing with the economy, while 54 percent disapproved. More problematic for the incumbent: Forty-one percent strongly disapproved of the job he is doing on the economy, while only 21 percent strongly approved.
l Obama has spent more than $400 million, according to a New York Times analysis, on his reelection campaign but almost certainly will be outspent - and probably heavily outspent - by the former Massachusetts governor and his allies in the 92 days between now and the Nov. 6 election.
And yet, despite all of those factors clearly working against him, Obama is either statistically tied or ahead in key swing-state polling - suggesting that writing his political obituary today is decidedly premature.
So, what gives? Call it the political equivalent of the nature-vs.-nurture debate. Put more simply: The backdrop on which the campaign is fought matters (nature), but so, too, does the kind of race each candidate runs (nurture).
At the moment, Obama is winning the nurture side of the equation - thanks to a series of tactical victories that have put Romney and his team on its heels. From the debate over when Romney totally cut ties to Bain Capital to the (ongoing) debate over whether he should release more of his tax returns to the negative press surrounding Romney's trip to Britain, Israel and Poland last week, the narrative of the campaign over the past month has worked heavily in Obama's favor.
Add to that Obama's ad onslaught against Romney - has anyone in a swing state by now not heard the former governor awkwardly singing "America the Beautiful"? - and it's clear that the incumbent has been winning the day-to-day battle.
The question is how much winning the nurture side of the debate actually matters. Republicans are quick to note that for much of August during the 2008 campaign - and even into the two parties' national conventions - their side was winning the tactical fight, thanks in large part to the famous/infamous ad run by Sen. John McCain that labeled Obama an international celebrity on par with Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.
Those day-to-day wins didn't matter once the world economy seized and McCain uttered his "fundamentals of our economy are strong" line. Political nature took over, pushing Obama to a historic victory that included wins in longtime Republican strongholds such as Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia.
Romney strategists and allies insist that 2012 is another year when political nature will win out over political nurture. (Although it's worth noting that they would less readily concede that they are losing the day-to-day campaign to Obama.) For all of the Obama team's attempts to turn this election into a devil-you-know-vs.-devil-you-don't choice, the Romney team argues it will ultimately fail because voters see this election as about one thing and only one thing: Obama's ability (or inability) to improve the economy.
Who's right? The next six weeks will be a telling indicator.
If Obama and the nurture side of the argument are right, the body blows the president's campaign team has been landing on Romney for the last two months will start to pay political dividends as the former governor's image is tarnished beyond repair for undecided voters.
If Romney and the nature side are correct, the Republican will begin to pull into the lead as undecided voters, who care only about Obama's performance on the economy, look at the macro political picture and conclude it's time for someone new.
Of course, things can change. Romney can turn the tide in the tactical end of the campaign, beginning to win the daily back-and-forth of the race. Or Obama can hope that the July job creation numbers are a leading indicator of an economic improvement that will allow him to argue that his policies are starting to work.
For now, though, it's Romney's nature argument vs. Obama's nurture argument.
chris.cillizza@wpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1424 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 5, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Copying Obama's '08 Strategy, Romney Takes to the Ground in Colorado
BYLINE: By JACK HEALY
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 16
LENGTH: 993 words
LAKEWOOD, Colo. -- In an office park with clipped lawns and burbling fountains, volunteers at Mitt Romney's new Colorado headquarters were busy working the phones. Do you approve of President Obama, they asked voters. Are you voting Democratic or Republican? Every time they tallied a new Romney supporter, they dinged a bell.
The campaign cannot ding fast enough. With Colorado as narrowly divided and fiercely contested as any battleground state in the country, its fate this November may well depend on whether Mr. Romney's campaign can build a ground-level presence like the one that helped carry Mr. Obama four years ago.
They are starting from behind. Mr. Obama already has 32 field offices scattered across Colorado, from the dense Denver suburbs to smaller cities on the edges of the mountains and plains. Mr. Romney's campaign has just 10, many of them paired with local Republican Party offices. The campaign's state headquarters has been formally open since only mid-June.
But as Republicans outpace Democrats in fund-raising, they say have doubled their national footprint over the past month. The Romney campaign is looking to chip away at Mr. Obama's vaunted organizational advantage on the ground, as Republican-financed political groups blast the airwaves.
''They are the reigning champs,'' said Rich Beeson, Mr. Romney's political director. ''They learned from us in 2004. We learned from them in 2008.''
With more volunteers and more campaign offices, each campaign can send out armies of door-knockers to identify supporters and goad them to volunteer and vote. They have beachheads to attract new volunteers and spots where supporters can spend evenings building databases, calling other voters and eating one another's homemade cookies.
Republicans say they have 250 ''victory offices'' nationwide, with four more in the pipeline for Colorado, including one in the liberal college town of Boulder. Mr. Romney's advisers say they have no plans to try to match Mr. Obama office for office and staff member for staff member, but they say that will not prevent them from covering places like Colorado with volunteers to make phone calls and ring doorbells.
''Colorado could very well be the state that decides the presidency,'' said James Garcia, Mr. Romney's state director here. ''We have activity across the state. We're leaving no stone unturned.''
The Obama campaign has hundreds of field offices across the country but would not provide a precise number.
The ground game could tip the balance in tossup states like Colorado, analysts say. Local television stations in Denver and in southern and western Colorado are already soaked with political advertisements, most of them currently from Mr. Romney's side. His campaign and Republican-affiliated groups spent $1.4 million in Colorado from July 3 to July 16, edging out the $1.1 million spent by Democrats.
Opinion polls, which have given Mr. Obama a narrow lead, are tightening here in Colorado.
''A serious investment in ground game by either side could be pivotal,'' said Seth Masket, an associate professor of political science at the University of Denver. ''Where it's a really close swing state, a point or two can make all the difference in the world.''
In studying how Coloradans voted in 2008 compared with 2004, Mr. Masket found that Democratic turnout rose by an average of 6.3 percent in counties with Obama campaign offices. Average turnout rose by only 4.5 percent in counties without Obama offices.
The Obama and Romney offices in Lakewood sit four miles apart along Colfax Avenue, a busy, somewhat gritty commercial stretch of strip malls, fast food restaurants and liquor stores that Playboy magazine once called the ''longest, wickedest street in America.''
A short drive east from the Romney campaign's parklike headquarters is the Obama campaign's local field office. It sits in a strip mall, near a dog-training school and a bong shop called Heads of State, and buzzes with activity as seasoned volunteers chat with new arrivals. Others call previous Obama supporters, hoping to reignite some of the enthusiasm that helped Democrats carry this county in 2008.
The volunteers make thousands of phone calls across Colorado every week, describing why they support Mr. Obama and talking to voters (at least the ones who do not immediately hang up) about middle-class tax cuts, student loans and health care. They knock on doors. They register voters at Colorado Rockies baseball games. They try to overcome the malaise and anger congealed by 8.3 percent unemployment nationwide and years of sluggish economic growth.
''Even if they're disappointed, they still believe he's the best hope we have,'' said Jill Wildenberg, a volunteer neighborhood leader for the Obama campaign in downtown Denver.
Team Romney said it was running its Lakewood headquarters 12 hours a day six days a week, with shorter shifts on Sundays. Mr. Garcia, the Colorado director, and Ciara Matthews, the campaign's Colorado spokeswoman, said the campaign had been outpacing expectations on numbers of new volunteers, voter registration and the numbers of shifts people were working.
They see a sign of renewed enthusiasm in Republican voter registration, which stands at 1.12 million, compared with 1.09 million registered Democrats. And they say that volunteers like Mary Janssen, whose family owns a struggling portrait photography studio, may help tip the scales in Colorado.
''We are all hurting, everyone I know,'' Ms. Janssen said, offering a long list of grievances against Mr. Obama, including high joblessness, abortion policies and health care. She said she had been making phone calls since the beginning of summer and had brought friends from her Lakewood neighborhood to volunteer. Her passion to drum Mr. Obama out of office ran as hot as the baking late-afternoon sun outside the air-conditioned office.
''I just jumped in here and said, 'Hey, you got me,' '' Ms. Janssen said. ''I'm going to fight.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Carl Westgard at the Romney headquarters in Colorado last month. The campaign is increasing ground-level efforts in the state. Left, a picture of the president hangs on the wall at the Democratic Party's state office in Denver. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MATTHEW STAVER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1425 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 5, 2012 Sunday
Dueling Campaigns Ads for a Weekend Off the Trail
BYLINE: GERRY MULLANY
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 329 words
HIGHLIGHT: The presidential campaigns let their advertising do the talking this weekend with the candidates off the trail.
Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are off the campaign trail today, but their campaigns are not resting. The two sides released new ads this weekend that struck some fresh themes, with the Romney campaign seizing on the unemployment figures that came out Friday and the Obama campaign making an appeal to female voters.
The ad by the Romney campaign, called "It's Just Not Getting Better," was released Sunday, and notes that "in July, unemployment went up again." That assertion is true, as thejobless rate ticked up to 8.3 percent last monthfrom 8.2 percent in June. But the Labor Department found that 163,000 jobs were created, a figure Democrats touted as evidence of a recovering economy.
The Obama campaign ad highlights Mr. Romney's comment that he would "get rid of" Planned Parenthood. But Mr. Romney's campaign later clarified the remarks, saying he would eliminate its federal subsidies, not get rid of the program, an approach similar to the one he would take with Amtrak.
In a statement, Adrea Saul, speaking for the Romney campaign, criticized the Obama ad as misleading while calling it a distraction from the nation's economic problems:
"One day after the unemployment rate increased and we reached 42 consecutive months with a jobless rate greater than 8 percent, it is not surprising that the Obama campaign would release a false ad in an attempt to distract from the effects of the president's failed policies. Dishonest political attacks will not change the fact that President Obama has not turned around the economy, and his policies have hurt women and families all over the country. We tried it the president's way, and middle-class workers have paid the price. Mitt Romney has a plan for a stronger middle class that will jumpstart the economy and bring back millions of jobs."
President Obama returns to the White House on Sunday from Camp David, where he was celebrating his birthday, while Mitt Romney will be at his country house in Wolfeboro, N.H.
LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1426 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 5, 2012 Sunday
Dueling Campaign Ads for a Weekend Off the Trail
BYLINE: GERRY MULLANY
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 329 words
HIGHLIGHT: The presidential campaigns let their advertising do the talking this weekend with the candidates off the trail.
Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are off the campaign trail today, but their campaigns are not resting. The two sides released new ads this weekend that struck some fresh themes, with the Romney campaign seizing on the unemployment figures that came out Friday and the Obama campaign making an appeal to female voters.
The ad by the Romney campaign, called "It's Just Not Getting Better," was released Sunday, and notes that "in July, unemployment went up again." That assertion is true, as thejobless rate ticked up to 8.3 percent last monthfrom 8.2 percent in June. But the Labor Department found that 163,000 jobs were created, a figure Democrats touted as evidence of a recovering economy.
The Obama campaign ad highlights Mr. Romney's comment that he would "get rid of" Planned Parenthood. But Mr. Romney's campaign later clarified the remarks, saying he would eliminate its federal subsidies, not get rid of the program, an approach similar to the one he would take with Amtrak.
In a statement, Adrea Saul, speaking for the Romney campaign, criticized the Obama ad as misleading while calling it a distraction from the nation's economic problems:
"One day after the unemployment rate increased and we reached 42 consecutive months with a jobless rate greater than 8 percent, it is not surprising that the Obama campaign would release a false ad in an attempt to distract from the effects of the president's failed policies. Dishonest political attacks will not change the fact that President Obama has not turned around the economy, and his policies have hurt women and families all over the country. We tried it the president's way, and middle-class workers have paid the price. Mitt Romney has a plan for a stronger middle class that will jumpstart the economy and bring back millions of jobs."
President Obama returns to the White House on Sunday from Camp David, where he was celebrating his birthday, while Mitt Romney will be at his country house in Wolfeboro, N.H.
LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1427 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 5, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Obama campaign uses muddy figures to fill holes in Romney's budget plan
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A section; Pg. A06
LENGTH: 937 words
"Mitt Romney's plan? A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires . . . increase military spending . . . adding trillions to the deficit. Or President Obama's plan? A balanced approach . . . Four trillion in deficit reduction."
- Voice-over in a newObama campaign ad
In just 30 seconds, this new Obama campaign ad covers a lot of ground, evoking images of the George W. Bush administration ("two wars . . . tax cuts for millionaires"), tying presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to those policies and then ending with positive words for President Obama's plans. (There's even an amazing shot of a super-millionaire's home.) At least the ad is about policy differences, rather than the usual campaign fare of outsourcing, Bain Capital and verbal gaffes.
The Facts
The Obama campaign has to perform some leaps of logic because, frankly, the Romney campaign has not explained how his budget and tax numbers add up. Romney has proposed to cut tax rates but keep revenue neutral with unspecified offsets, while also boosting defense spending while reducing the deficit through largely unspecified cuts. Pinning down the actual figures is a bit like nailing Jello to a wall.
Many experts would say Romney's proposals are simply mathematically impossible, unless one engages in budget gimmicks, such as assuming tax cuts will largely pay for themselves. A new study released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that, even accounting for higher economic growth, there is no way for Romney to meet his targets without also boosting taxes on middle- and lower-income taxpayers. The Romney campaign rejected the analysis, saying it was biased and had "gaps," such as not including the potential impact from corporate tax reforms advocated by Romney.
The Romney campaign would have more credibility to claim bias if it had not approvingly cited the Tax Policy Center as providing "an objective, third-party analysis" when the group critically examined the tax plan of onetime GOP rival Rick Perry.
Readers of this column know that we frequently cite the Tax Policy Center's work. In a town full of partisans, the group is about as even-handed and nonpartisan as possible. The staff roster consists of serious and credible analysts with experience working in the administrations of both parties.
Still, the Tax Policy Center analysis said that the average tax cut for a taxpayer making more than $1 million would be about $87,000 - much lower than the ad's claim of $250,000.
So how does the Obama campaign come up with a figure of $250,000? The campaign cites _blankan earlier Tax Policy Center study that did not include an effort to consider the possible tax loopholes and credits that Romney could eliminate in an effort to keep his tax reforms revenue neutral. The study is even headlined: "Romney Tax Plan without Unspecified Base Broadeners."
Now, of course, the Obama campaign ad was prepared before the new analysis was released, so we can't ding it for that. But campaign officials presumably knew that it was an incomplete picture. After all, the White House _blankhad earlier calculated that a similar House Republican plan would result in a $107,000 tax break for the wealthy after eliminating every possible tax loophole. (Note: After the study was released, Obama adjusted his language in _blankcampaign speeches to say that people making more than $3 million would get a $250,000 tax cut, which is what the Tax Policy Center analysis concluded.)
The same dynamic holds true for the ad's claim that Romney's plans would add "trillions to the deficit."
The Obama campaign cites studies that show Romney's tax cuts - without the unspecified offsets - would add to the deficit. In theory, however, _blankRomney's economic plan would dramatically reduce spending, since he proposes a cap at 20 percent of the gross domestic product (down from the current 24 percent). But that would require at least $600 billion in annual budget cuts, and he identifies less than $300 billion, including $60 billion from that old budget gimmick - reduce waste and fraud.Meanwhile, Obama plays his own budget games. The claim that his budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply laughable. The figure includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.
Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. There are a number of other budget games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects.
In effect, most of Obama's claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases.
The Pinocchio Test
With incomplete figures and an unbalanced analysis, the Obama campaign is casting Romney's economic plan in the worst possible light while putting an unwarranted sheen on the president's proposals.
Romney's continued failure to provide enough specifics about his plans certainly lets the Obama campaign openly speculate about the impact. The president, by contrast, is required to present a real budget with actual figures, but as we have shown, he can still play budget tricks to make the numbers add up. So even more detail from Romney on his spending priorities might not make the budget dispute any clearer.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read previous Fact Checker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker.
LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1428 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 5, 2012 Sunday 5:17 PM EST
A tough new Obama ad that - surprise! - is accurate;
For the first time in this campiagn, we award a Gepetto Checkmark to a campaign ad.
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 1229 words
"Chances are you pay a higher tax rate than him [Mitt Romney]....Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010 but paid only 14 percent in taxes...probably less than you. Now he has a plan that would give millionaires another tax break. And raises taxes on middle class families by up to two thousand dollars a year."
- Voiceover of new Obama campaign ad, "Stretch"
The Obama campaign rushed to take advantage of a new Tax Policy Center study about Mitt Romney's tax plan, combining it with information about Romney's 2010 tax return. We have looked at these issues before but as these ads go, the language is fairly careful and restrained. Let's take a deeper look.
The Facts
Romney certainly made a lot of money in 2010 - $21.7 million, according to his tax return - and yet his tax rate was about 13.9 percent. As we have noted before, he achieves this rate because much of his income is treated as capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a preferential rate of 15 percent, and because he donates about 14 percent of his income to charity. (Reuters wrote an interesting article showing that Romney's donations of appreciated stock to the Mormon church further shielded him from possible capital gains taxes.)
In the past, we gave the Obama campaign Three Pinocchios for saying that Romney paid "much less than what many middle-class families pay." But the language in this ad is much more accurate.
The ad says "chances are you pay a higher rate" and that Romney's 14 percent rate is "probably less than you" pay. Most people pay relatively little in individual income taxes, but (unlike Romney) also contribute a good portion of their income to payroll taxes (such as Social Security and Medicare). Employers also pay a share, which most economists say is taken out of a person's wage.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the effective rate for the middle 20 percent is 15.5 percent, including all payroll taxes. That is higher than Romney's 13.9 percent rate, so there is more than a 50-50 chance that a person's rate would be higher than Romney's tax rate. (As we have noted, the numbers are more favorable to Romney if you exclude payroll taxes paid by employers.)
The rest of the ad concerns the new study by the Tax Policy Center, which examines whether the numbers add up in Romney's tax plan as described on his Web site. As we have noted, Romney has not detailed how he would cut tax rates by 20 percent and yet eliminate enough tax loopholes to keep the plan revenue neutral.
The study essentially concludes that, no matter what choices are made, taxes will be lower for the very wealthy while raised for most middle and lower income taxpayers. That's because there are not enough loopholes to close for the rich - and the real money available to boost revenue would come from getting rid of tax credits that mostly benefit middle-income taxpayers, such as the home mortgage deduction. The study came to this conclusion even after trying to grant every positive assumption to the Romney plan.
The ad accurately describes the main points of the study, using headlines such as from The Wall Street Journal to underline its points: "Study: Romney's Tax Plan Hits Middle Class."
The Romney campaign has emphatically rejected the study on several grounds. First, it claims the paper is "biased" because of the involvement of an economist (Adam Looney) who worked on the staff of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Second, it says it ignores "pro-growth elements" of Romney's plan, such as corporate tax reform and reduced deficits. Finally, it says the study admits it is not really examining Romney's plan.
The charge of bias is pretty ridiculous. Looney, the third name on the paper, was an economist, not a principal, on the CEA and spent six years as an economist at the Federal Reserve Board. The economist positions at the CEA, in fact, are nonpartisan. Indeed, another co-author of the study, William Gale, was an economist for the CEA during the George H.W. Bush administration.
The Romney campaign would have more credibility to claim bias if it had not approvingly cited the Tax Policy Center as providing "an objective, third-party analysis" when the group critically examined the tax plan of Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Readers of this column know that we have frequently cited the Tax Policy Center's work. In a town full of partisans, the group is about as even-handed and nonpartisan as possible. The staff roster consists of serious and credible analysts with experience working in the administrations of both parties.
It is also a bit rich for the Romney plan to complain that the paper does not really examine Romney's plan - or is missing key elements - when the major problem with the plan is that Romney has released precious few details about it. The Tax Policy Center analysis makes clear that a full review is not possible because "certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail." In other words, if Romney would actually spell out those details, then a full review would be possible.
(We asked the Romney campaign for such details, but only received talking points criticizing the Tax Policy Center study.)
We have previously noted internal contradictions about Romney's plan. Romney has cited the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission as pointing a path to cutting rates while increasing revenue. But the Simpson-Bowles proposals would actually increase the tax burden on the top 20 percent of taxpayers - which the Romney campaign says he opposes.
In any case, the Obama ad correctly describes the key findings of a study by a highly credible organization. The figure of "up to $2,000" in tax increases for "middle class families" comes from page 18 of the study, which notes that the average tax increase for taxpayers with children and income below $200,000 would be $2,041. (The apparent tax increases are smaller for middle-income taxpayers without children.)
The ad concludes by asserting that under Romney's tax plan, "he pays less, you pay more." That is the most debatable part of the ad, because Romney insists that under his plan the wealthy will not pay less (or more). He obviously also has not proposed a $2,000 tax increase on middle-class families. But thus far he has not shown how he would achieve his tax goals, so the Obama campaign can certainly call him on his fuzzy math.
The Pinocchio Test
This ad is tough, but we cannot fault the accuracy of its key points. To some extent, the Romney campaign has been hoist with its own petard by refusing to provide sufficient detail that shows how the numbers add up in Romney's tax and budget plans. So we are left with the judgment of a respected and independent third party.
We hold campaign ads to a high standard, particularly attack ads. If Romney releases the missing details, and a new analysis finds that Romney can meet the stated goals of his tax plan, then we can certainly revisit this analysis. But, until then, for the first time in this frequently nasty campaign, we award a rare Geppetto Checkmark for a campaign ad.
Geppetto Checkmark
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1429 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 5, 2012 Sunday
Every Edition
On Twitter, NBC failed. In prime time, it won.
BYLINE: Michael S. Rosenwald
SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. B04
LENGTH: 1019 words
This must have been a baffling week for NBC executives.
The nation's oldest TV network - and the tubes through which we're watching the Olympics - has endured harsh criticism on Twitter for its tape-delayed, late-night coverage of the Summer Games.
The hashtag #NBCFail has been connected to thousands, perhaps millions, of tweets such as this one: "BREAKING: USA wins gold medal in synchronized NBC bashing. Tune in to NBC tomorrow for coverage of the event."
Journalists quickly jumped on the Twitter frenzy, reporting about the uproar in the Wall Street Journal, on CNN.com, in USA Today and beyond.
From the tone on Twitter, it sounds as if America, fed up with NBC, is willing to watch just about anything else on TV - even "Bachelor Pad."
But NBC's ratings tell a different story. The numbers are higher than expected, both in viewership and ad dollars, and the network's executives are happy. "The silent majority" of viewers, one top executive told reporters, is content.
How these two contradictory plotlines - #NBCFail and "Let's watch the Olympics tonight!" - developed highlights the information gulf in our digital age. This is the era when Facebook and Twitter and Foursquare and Instagram and Yelp were supposed to connect all of us, a networked community of computer and gadget users in disparate places.
But the #NBCFail hullabaloo clearly shows that we are still talking past each other, just like we always have. Even as social networks bring us closer to people we already know, and to strangers with shared interests and passions, that might never change. In fact, the disconnect could get worse.
In examining how #NBCFail became a major story, it's crucial to know this: Only about 8 percent of U.S. Internet users use Twitter on a typical day, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Put another way, 92 percent of U.S. Internet users aren't seriously using Twitter. The demographics of the site skew heavily to young adults, urban and suburban residents, and African Americans.
They used to talk to each other in what was just a tweet-tweet echo chamber. As recently as 2010, research from the Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that "social media tend to home in on stories that get much less attention in the mainstream press. And there is little evidence, at least at this point, of the traditional press then picking up on those stories in response."
But in the past year or so, there has been an appreciable change. Stories and movements that develop in cyberspace are moving to the mainstream media more often, even though most Americans are not spending their days following debates streaming down their computer monitors. Remember: Many Americans have jobs that don't require them to stare at computers all day.
My wife is a doctor. She is no dummy. She is also a passionate Olympics watcher. The other night, over our daily required intake of summer ice cream treats, I asked her, "What do you make of all the criticism of NBC?" She looked at me like I had just told her that I forgot to take out the trash. I explained the #NBCFail issue. She said, "I'm not on the Internet all day like you are."
I noted a similar thought from ESPN writer Don Van Natta Jr., who said: "My 70-year-old mother gets all her news from the morning newspaper. She thinks NBC's Olympics coverage is swell."
Where did I find Van Natta's thought? On Twitter, of course.
Back in 2009 and into 2010, journalists who were glued to Twitter were outliers. But today, if a journalist is not spending a good portion of his day on Twitter, he is either unconscious or not near a WiFi hot spot. And journalists - I'm guilty as charged - are increasingly turning to the site as a snappy way to see what the American People are thinking about. William Dutton, a professor of Internet studies at Oxford, has called the rise of networked individuals and the Twitterati the "Fifth Estate."
As Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, told me, "Journalists find Twitter to be a really effective, fascinating and even thrilling way of tracking conversation and tracking news."
It's right at our desks - and journalists, especially this one, are nothing if not general haters of being outdoors. It's easy to search. And Twitter users are frequently angry about some slight or another, which provides conflict-in-a-box. Start-ups such as Storify have produced apps that even let journalists turn tweets into stories. Twitter is the new man-on-the-street, seemingly solving a problem journalists have struggled with since the days of the penny press: How do we figure out what America is thinking?
Some big mainstream stories have gained significant traction on Twitter, including the Arab Spring and the controversy over Planned Parenthood funding from the Susan G. Komen breast cancer group. But other stories - ones that probably don't reflect what most of America is thinking about - are turning up more often in mainstream outlets.
The #NBCFail drama is one example. The renewed vigor with which the media seem to be covering presidential candidates' gaffes is another. There should be a new word for the look on the faces of non-Twitter users when they are asked about a controversy on the site. I propose "twerplexed."
And even though most of America isn't paying attention, mainstream news outlets are increasing their reliance on Twitter. This newspaper tracks references to political candidates on Twitter using something it calls @MentionMachine. This past week, Twitter introduced its Twitter Political Index, which uses tweets to measure sentiment about President Obama and Mitt Romney, as if the very small subset of Americans who tweet - and tweet about politics - could tell us anything meaningful about the presidential race.
I like the way Rosenstiel put it: "If Twitter was a meaningful predictor of voter behavior, Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee."
America is still disconnected.
rosenwaldm@washpost.com
Michael S. Rosenwald, a Washington Post reporter, writes the blog Rosenwald, Md.
Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on, yes, Twitter.
LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1430 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 5, 2012 Sunday
Regional Edition
Obama campaign uses muddy figures to fill holes in Romney's budget plan
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A06
LENGTH: 920 words
"Mitt Romney's plan? A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires . . . increase military spending . . . adding trillions to the deficit. Or President Obama's plan? A balanced approach . . . Four trillion in deficit reduction."
- Voice-over in a newObama campaign ad
In just 30 seconds, this new Obama campaign ad covers a lot of ground, evoking images of the George W. Bush administration ("two wars . . . tax cuts for millionaires"), tying presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to those policies and then ending with positive words for President Obama's plans. (There's even an amazing shot of a super-millionaire's home.) At least the ad is about policy differences, rather than the usual campaign fare of outsourcing, Bain Capital and verbal gaffes.
The Facts
The Obama campaign has to perform some leaps of logic because, frankly, the Romney campaign has not explained how his budget and tax numbers add up. Romney has proposed to cut tax rates but keep revenue neutral with unspecified offsets, while also boosting defense spending while reducing the deficit through largely unspecified cuts. Pinning down the actual figures is a bit like nailing Jello to a wall.
Many experts would say Romney's proposals are simply mathematically impossible, unless one engages in budget gimmicks, such as assuming tax cuts will largely pay for themselves. A new studyreleased Wednesday by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that, even accounting for higher economic growth, there is no way for Romney to meet his targets without also boosting taxes on middle- and lower-income taxpayers.
The Romney campaign rejected the analysis, saying it was biased and had "gaps," such as not including the potential impact from corporate tax reforms advocated by Romney.
The Romney campaign would have more credibility to claim bias if it had not approvingly cited the Tax Policy Center as providing "an objective, third-party analysis" when the group critically examined the tax plan of onetime GOP rival Rick Perry.
Readers of this column know that we frequently cite the Tax Policy Center's work. In a town full of partisans, the group is about as even-handed and nonpartisan as possible. The staff roster consists of serious and credible analysts with experience working in the administrations of both parties.
Still, the Tax Policy Center analysis said that the average tax cut for a taxpayer making more than $1 million would be about $87,000 - much lower than the ad's claim of $250,000.
So how does the Obama campaign come up with a figure of $250,000? The campaign cites _blankan earlier Tax Policy Center study that did not include an effort to consider the possible tax loopholes and credits that Romney could eliminate in an effort to keep his tax reforms revenue neutral. The study is even headlined: "Romney Tax Plan without Unspecified Base Broadeners."
Now, of course, the Obama campaign ad was prepared before the new analysis was released, so we can't ding it for that. But campaign officials presumably knew that it was an incomplete picture. After all, the White House _blankhad earlier calculated that a similar House Republican plan would result in a $107,000 tax break for the wealthy after eliminating every possible tax loophole.
(Note: After the study was released, Obama adjusted his language in _blankcampaign speeches to say that people making more than $3 million would get a $250,000 tax cut, which is what the Tax Policy Center analysis concluded.)
The same dynamic holds true for the ad's claim that Romney's plans would add "trillions to the deficit."
The Obama campaign cites studies that show Romney's tax cuts - without the unspecified offsets - would add to the deficit. In theory, however, _blankRomney's economic plan would dramatically reduce spending, since he proposes a cap at 20 percent of the gross domestic product (down from the current 24 percent). But that would require at least $600 billion in annual budget cuts, and he identifies less than $300 billion, including $60 billion from that old budget gimmick - reduce waste and fraud.
Meanwhile, Obama plays his own budget games. The claim that his budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply laughable. The figure includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.
Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. There are a number of other budget games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects.
In effect, most of Obama's claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases.
The Pinocchio Test
With incomplete figures and an unbalanced analysis, the Obama campaign is casting Romney's economic plan in the worst possible light while putting an unwarranted sheen on the president's proposals.
Romney's continued failure to provide enough specifics about his plans certainly lets the Obama campaign openly speculate about the impact. The president, by contrast, is required to present a real budget with actual figures, but as we have shown, he can still play budget tricks to make the numbers add up. So even more detail from Romney on his spending priorities might not make the budget dispute any clearer.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read previous Fact Checker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker.
LOAD-DATE: August 5, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1431 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 4, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
The 'sorry' state of the presidential campaign
BYLINE: David Nakamura
SECTION: A section; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1173 words
These days, politics means always having to say you're sorry.
At least that's how it seems in an election year when petty insults, immature taunts and vicious attacks are distributed with reckless abandon, then taken back almost as quickly.
Though apologies have long been a part of Washington's political discourse, there has been a recent rush of groveling by both political parties as a 2012 campaign defined by the smallness of the day-to-day debate heads into the homestretch.
In the past two weeks alone, the Democratic National Committee apologized to Ann Romney over a television ad that mocked her ownership of an Olympic dressage horse; Republican operative John Sununu apologized for suggesting that President Obama was un-American; Obama's communications director apologized to a conservative writer Charles Krauthammer for a blog post attacking one of Krauthammer's columns; Mitt Romney's traveling press secretary, Rick Gorka, apologized for telling reporters to "kiss my a--" during a trip overseas; and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee apologized to conservative casino magnate Sheldon Adelson for falsely implying that he knew of prostitution at one of his casinos in Macau. "Frankly, I made a mistake," Sununu said on July 17 after telling reporters in a conference call arranged by the Romney campaign that he wished Obama "would learn how to be an American."
Sununu, the former chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush, added: "I shouldn't have used those words. And I apologize for using those words."
A day later, it was the Democrats' turn to say sorry. As the Olympics were about to get underway in London, the DNC pulled its offending dressage-related ad off the airwaves after Ann Romney said the family's horse was used to help in her therapy for multiple sclerosis.
"Our use of the Romneys' dressage horse was not meant to offend Mrs. Romney in any way, and we regret it if it did," DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told ABC News.
But does the string of mea culpas reflect a sudden surge of self-policing by the nation's political class, who are so often accused of failing to hold themselves accountable for their conduct?
Or is this wave simply the fallout of the new social media climate, where rapid-fire insults have become the norm and have led to a new spate of unvarnished - and often regrettable - reactions in the moment?
"In every campaign cycle, you have a new wave of amateurs with their hands on live ammunition," said Dan Hazelwood, a Republican political consultant from Alexandria. These operatives "vomit forth whatever idea they have without self-reflection."
Hazelwood added that "the social media world, the Internet in particular, is assaulting. . . . When you inject the lack of decorum of the Internet with passionate emotional issues like politics, you have stuff that just spins out of control."
Take, for example, the politically tense moments surrounding the Supreme Court's June 28 ruling that upheld Obama's landmark health-care reform law. With both sides hoping to score political points that would resonate on the campaign trail, operatives were itching to declare victory.
"it's constitutional. B----es," DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard fired off in a Twitter message. The victory celebration quickly backfired when Gaspard's Republican adversaries savaged him in a barrage of counter tweets.
Gaspard was back on Twitter a short time later, digital hat firmly in hand.
"I let my scotus excitement get the better of me," he wrote, using the shortened form of Supreme Court of the United States. "In all seriousness, this is an important moment in improving the lives of all Americans."
Gaspard has not tweeted since. A message left for him at DNC headquarters did not elicit a reply Friday.
Mark Bergman, a Democratic strategist, said that campaigns are struggling to deal with a "minute-to-minute" news cycle in which each side feels pressure to "fill the void" for reporters assigned to produce nonstop copy.
"Campaigns, just like everyone else, are trying to figure out how the quickness of campaigning has changed," Bergman said. "This is rapidly evolving. Look at the 2000 cycle, just over 10 years ago, when the idea that you had a Web site was still revolutionary."
It was the White House's blog that got Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's fiery communications director, in trouble last week. Pfeiffer was eager to fight back against suggestions by Romney, who had traveled to London, that Obama had, upon taking office, returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British Embassy out of "antipathy towards the British," as Pfeiffer put it.
When Krauthammer repeated the anecdote in a column, Pfeiffer pounced, writing in a blog he titled a "Fact Check" that the assertion was "100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room." Pfeiffer included a photo of Obama showing off the bust to British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010. Except that it turned out there were two busts of Churchill; the second was an identical copy loaned by former Prime Minister Tony Blair to former President George W. Bush when the original was being cleaned. Indeed, Obama had returned the copy.
Pfeiffer followed up with an update explaining the confusion. But the next day, after Krauthammer berated him in another column, Pfeiffer sent him an apology note and posted a copy on the White House Web site at Krauthammer's urging.
"I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology," Pfeiffer wrote. "A better understanding of the facts on my part and a couple of deep breaths at the outset would have prevented this situation."
Andrew Rasiej, the founder of Personal Democracy Media, which examines the nexus between politics and technology, said that the campaigns are more able to manipulate the media with the digital tools of the modern era. But that has led both parties to bend the truth to fit their narratives.
"It's appalling the way both sides are cutting speeches and videos to make their points," he said. "When we were young, we were taught not to believe everything we read. With social media, don't believe everything you read times 10."
Pfeiffer could take some solace this week when Romney's spokesman, Rick Gorka, stuck his foot in his mouth the old-fashioned way - by losing his temper in front of reporters. As a pack of journalists tried to shout questions to Romney after the presumptive GOP nominee finished a visit to the Polish Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw, the spokesman lost his cool.
"Kiss my a--! This is a holy site for the Polish people," Gorka responded angrily. "Show some respect."
Romney, whose book "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness" contends that Obama has kowtowed to foreign leaders, has pledged to no longer apologize on the world stage.
The same was not true for his spokesman, who called two reporters later that day to make amends for his outburst. He is planning a break from campaign travel after the incident.
nakamurad@washpost.
LOAD-DATE: August 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1432 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
Election 2012
August 4, 2012 Saturday 4:59 PM EST
Clint Eastwood endorses Romney's presidential bid;
"I haven't endorsed Governor Romney," Eastwood, who entered the event alone, deadpanned to reporters when asked which candidate he plans to support in the 2012 White House race.
BYLINE: Felicia Sonmez
LENGTH: 667 words
Actor Clint Eastwood came under fire from some Republicans in February for his appearance in a Chrysler ad that some said had echoes of President Obama's campaign message.
But six months after the "Halftime in America" Super Bowl ad, Eastwood on Friday night was spotted at a fundraiser for Obama's White House rival, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, in Sun Valley, Idaho.
"I haven't endorsed Governor Romney," Eastwood, who entered the event alone, joked to reporters when asked which candidate he plans to support in the 2012 White House race.
"I think the country needs a boost somewhere," he added.
Moments later, Romney called on Eastwood to take the stage outside the Sun Valley Resort lodge. Among the other notables present were Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) and Olympic skater Scott Hamilton. Tickets for the 325-person fundraiser ranged from $1,000 to $25,000.
"There is a guy here from the world of acting, who has pursed his dreams in a very unusual way," Romney, who appeared tired after a busy day on the trail, told the crowd after delivering his stump speech. "He stood up to the industry and did things his own way."
The crowd applauded and some pointed to Eastwood, who listened to Romney's speech from the front of the audience, his arms behind his back.
"Can I get Clint Eastwood to come up here and say hi to everybody?" Romney asked.
Eastwood, who was clad in a green coat, khakis and sneakers, walked up to the stage and said a few inaudible words to Romney, at which the presumptive GOP nominee laughed.
"This is very nice to be here today, tonight, today," Eastwood said. "Let's clear the smoke."
He told the crowd that in the early 2000s, he was making the film 'Mystic River' in Romney's home state of Massachusetts.
"At that time, Gov. Romney was running for governor," Eastwood said. "I said, 'God, this guy is too handsome to be governor, but he does look like he could be president.' As the years have gone by, I'm beginning to think even more so that. He's going to restore a decent tax system that we need badly so that there is a fairness and people are not pitted against one another of whose paying taxes and who isn't."
In a reference to recent legislation sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that would do away with the tax on Olympic medals, Eastwood added: "Also we don't want anybody taking away the Olympic medals, tax-wise, from the Olympic athletes. The government is talking about getting a couple of nickles."
He told the crowd that he planned for vote for Romney, whose leadership is "now more important than ever."
"We've got to just spread the word and get the whole country behind this because it's going to be an exciting election," Eastwood said.
After Eastwood spoke, Romney took back the microphone and told the crowd: "He just made my day. What a guy."
At the time of the Chrysler ad's airing, some prominent Republicans had cried foul. Karl Rove told Fox News that he was offended by the two-minute TV spot and called it a product of the White House "in essence using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
Eastwood - a lifelong Republican who backed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 but has since described himself as libertarian-leaning - responded to the criticism in a statement to Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly.
"I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama," Eastwood had said in the statement. "It was meant to be a message about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it. I thought the spirit was okay."
Asked on Friday night whether his appearance at the Romney fundraiser was a second "Halftime in America" act, Eastwood joked that the reporter should be added to the Romney campaign committee.
The Romney fundraiser is one of several the presumptive GOP nominee has held during a three-day campaign swing out west. On Saturday, he heads to Evansville, Indiana, where he will hold court with donors at an afternoon event before returning to New Hampshire for the remainder of the weekend.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1433 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 4, 2012 Saturday
Suburban Edition
The 'sorry' state of the presidential campaign
BYLINE: David Nakamura
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A01
LENGTH: 1166 words
These days, politics means always having to say you're sorry.
At least that's how it seems in an election year when petty insults, immature taunts and vicious attacks are distributed with reckless abandon, then taken back almost as quickly.
Though apologies have long been a part of Washington's political discourse, there has been a recent rush of groveling by both political parties as a 2012 campaign defined by the smallness of the day-to-day debate heads into the homestretch.
In the past two weeks alone, the Democratic National Committee apologized to Ann Romney over a television ad that mocked her ownership of an Olympic dressage horse; Republican operative John Sununu apologized for suggesting that President Obama was un-American; Obama's communications director apologized to a conservative writer Charles Krauthammer for a blog post attacking one of Krauthammer's columns; Mitt Romney's traveling press secretary, Rick Gorka, apologized for telling reporters to "kiss my a--" during a trip overseas; and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee apologized to conservative casino magnate Sheldon Adelson for falsely implying that he knew of prostitutionat one of his casinos in Macau.
"Frankly, I made a mistake," Sununu said on July 17 after telling reporters in a conference call arranged by the Romney campaign that he wished Obama "would learn how to be an American."
Sununu, the former chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush, added: "I shouldn't have used those words. And I apologize for using those words."
A day later, it was the Democrats' turn to say sorry. As the Olympics were about to get underway in London, the DNC pulled its offending dressage-related ad off the airwaves after Ann Romney said the family's horse was used to help in her therapy for multiple sclerosis.
"Our use of the Romneys' dressage horse was not meant to offend Mrs. Romney in any way, and we regret it if it did," DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told ABC News.
But does the string of mea culpas reflect a sudden surge of self-policing by the nation's political class, who are so often accused of failing to hold themselves accountable for their conduct?
Or is this wave simply the fallout of the new social media climate, where rapid-fire insults have become the norm and have led to a new spate of unvarnished - and often regrettable - reactions in the moment?
"In every campaign cycle, you have a new wave of amateurs with their hands on live ammunition," said Dan Hazelwood, a Republican political consultant from Alexandria. These operatives "vomit forth whatever idea they have without self-reflection."
Hazelwood added that "the social media world, the Internet in particular, is assaulting. . . . When you inject the lack of decorum of the Internet with passionate emotional issues like politics, you have stuff that just spins out of control."
Take, for example, the politically tense moments surrounding the Supreme Court's June 28 ruling that upheld Obama's landmark health-care reform law. With both sides hoping to score political points that would resonate on the campaign trail, operatives were itching to declare victory.
"it's constitutional. B----es," DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard fired off in a Twitter message. The victory celebration quickly backfired when Gaspard's Republican adversaries savaged him in a barrage of counter tweets.
Gaspard was back on Twitter a short time later, digital hat firmly in hand.
"I let my scotus excitement get the better of me," he wrote, using the shortened form of Supreme Court of the United States. "In all seriousness, this is an important moment in improving the lives of all Americans."
Gaspard has not tweeted since. A message left for him at DNC headquarters did not elicit a reply Friday.
Mark Bergman, a Democratic strategist, said that campaigns are struggling to deal with a "minute-to-minute" news cycle in which each side feels pressure to "fill the void" for reporters assigned to produce nonstop copy.
"Campaigns, just like everyone else, are trying to figure out how the quickness of campaigning has changed," Bergman said. "This is rapidly evolving. Look at the 2000 cycle, just over 10 years ago, when the idea that you had a Web site was still revolutionary."
It was the White House's blog that got Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's fiery communications director, in trouble last week. Pfeiffer was eager to fight back against suggestions by Romney, who had traveled to London, that Obama had, upon taking office, returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the British Embassy out of "antipathy towards the British," as Pfeiffer put it.
When Krauthammer repeated the anecdote in a column, Pfeiffer pounced, writing in a blog he titled a "Fact Check" that the assertion was "100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room." Pfeiffer included a photo of Obama showing off the bust to British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010.
Except that it turned out there were two busts of Churchill; the second was an identical copy loaned by former Prime Minister Tony Blair to former President George W. Bush when the original was being cleaned. Indeed, Obama had returned the copy.
Pfeiffer followed up with an update explaining the confusion. But the next day, after Krauthammer berated him in another column, Pfeiffer sent him an apology note and posted a copy on the White House Web site at Krauthammer's urging.
"I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology," Pfeiffer wrote. "A better understanding of the facts on my part and a couple of deep breaths at the outset would have prevented this situation."
Andrew Rasiej, the founder of Personal Democracy Media, which examines the nexus between politics and technology, said that the campaigns are more able to manipulate the media with the digital tools of the modern era. But that has led both parties to bend the truth to fit their narratives.
"It's appalling the way both sides are cutting speeches and videos to make their points," he said. "When we were young, we were taught not to believe everything we read. With social media, don't believe everything you read times 10."
Pfeiffer could take some solace this week when Romney's spokesman, Rick Gorka, stuck his foot in his mouth the old-fashioned way - by losing his temper in front of reporters. As a pack of journalists tried to shout questions to Romney after the presumptive GOP nominee finished a visit to the Polish Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw, the spokesman lost his cool.
"Kiss my a--! This is a holy site for the Polish people," Gorka responded angrily. "Show some respect."
Romney, whose book "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness" contends that Obama has kowtowed to foreign leaders, has pledged to no longer apologize on the world stage.
The same was not true for his spokesman, who called two reporters later that day to make amends for his outburst. He is planning a break from campaign travel after the incident.
nakamurad@washpost.
LOAD-DATE: August 4, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1434 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 3, 2012 Friday
Late Edition - Final
Obama Campaign Seeks to Recast Romney as a Raiser of Taxes on the Middle Class
BYLINE: By PETER BAKER
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; AD WATCH; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 546 words
President Obama takes the offensive by presenting Mitt Romney's tax-cutting plan as something that will actually raise taxes on the middle class so the wealthy can pay less. Seizing on a new study, Mr. Obama is trying to convince voters that his opponent will do exactly what he says he will not.
THE SCRIPT A male narrator says: ''You work hard. Stretch every penny. But chances are you pay a higher tax rate than him. Mitt Romney made $20 million in 2010 but paid only 14 percent in taxes, probably less than you. Now he has a plan that would give millionaires another tax break, and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year. Mitt Romney's middle-class tax increase: He pays less. You pay more.''
ON THE SCREEN Images of families paying bills are juxtaposed with photos of Mitt Romney, including a picture of him with Donald J. Trump's plane in the background. Superimposed on the images are various numbers making the point of the ad.
ACCURACY Mr. Romney and his wife paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent on $21.6 million in adjusted gross income in 2010, a rate typical of households earning about $80,000, because his income came largely from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than salaries and wages. He has not proposed raising taxes on middle-class families by $2,000 as the ad suggests, but that is what the campaign argues would be the effect of the plan he has outlined, citing a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute.
Mr. Romney's plan would cut income tax rates by 20 percent, among other tax breaks; he promises to make the plan ''revenue neutral,'' meaning that the lost revenue would be offset so it would not increase the deficit, but has not specified how he would do that.
The study, filling in the gaps, assumed that he would have to eliminate various tax breaks like mortgage-interest deductions that would result in a net tax increase for 95 percent of taxpayers, while the wealthiest 5 percent would pay less. Those in middle-income brackets would pay on average $546 more a year, according to the study, and upper-middle class taxpayers would pay $1,880 more, while the taxes of the richest 1 percent would be cut by $29,282.
Mr. Romney's advisers said the study was flawed because it did not account for economic growth they believe would be stimulated by a separate plan to restructure corporate taxes and by lowered deficits. And they called the study biased because one of the three co-authors worked for Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Another worked for the elder President George Bush but has publicly supported ending the tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush in favor of a broader tax code overhaul. The director of the Tax Policy Center, Donald Marron, was a member of the younger Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, however.
BOTTOM LINE Mr. Obama is trying to turn the tax argument around. The Supreme Court recently upheld his health care law by defining its penalty for not buying insurance as a tax, and he has supported letting tax rates rise back to their level in the 1990s on income over $250,000. With this ad, he paints his opponent as a tax increaser and skewers him for seemingly favoring the rich over the middle class.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1435 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
August 3, 2012 Friday
First EDITION
At least 50% approve of Obama in 13 states
BYLINE: Catalina Camia and David Jackson
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 465 words
President Obama's approval ratings this year are at 50% or higher in 13 states and the District of Columbia -- a group that contributes 185 of the 270 electoral votes needed for re-election.
"In 16 states, his approval rating averaged below 40%," reports Gallup, which crunched data from the first six months of 2012.
Gallup noted that "the list of states in which Obama had majority approval during the first half of the year includes three of the most populous states: California, New York and Illinois."
In addition to Washington, D.C. -- which gave Obama an average approval rating of 83% for the first half of 2012 -- Obama also scored 50% or higher in Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, Delaware and Minnesota. He scored least favorably in Utah (26%), Wyoming (28%), Alaska (29%), West Virginia (31%) and Idaho (31%).
Nationwide, during the first half of 2012, 46% of Americans approved of Obama's performance and 46% disapproved.--David Jackson
U.S. increases humanitarian aid to Syria
President Obama on Thursday approved an additional $12million in humanitarian assistance to Syria.
"After nearly 17 months of conflict, the humanitarian situation is dire and rapidly deteriorating," said White House spokesman Jay Carney in a statement announcing the aid. "The United Nations estimates that over 1.5 million people in Syria are in need of humanitarian assistance, over 1 million people are internally displaced, and more than 130,000 people have sought refuge in neighboring countries."
The quickest way to end the suffering, Carney said, "is for Bashar al-Assad to recognize that the Syrian people will not allow him to continue in power, and to step aside."
White House officials have refused to comment on reports by Reuters and CNN that Obama has signed an order authorizing U.S. support for rebels in their battle against Assad.--David Jackson
Ads trade jabs over taxes and economy
Mitt Romney calls the president a "disappointment" in a new TV ad aimed at voters in Florida. It aired as Obama campaigned Thursday in Orlando.
"Four years ago, Barack Obama was concerned about Florida's economy," the narrator says. The ad goes on to note the state's record foreclosures, an unemployment rate of 8.6% and 600,000 Floridians who have fallen into poverty since Obama took office. Florida's 29 electoral votes are a big prize in the race for the White House.
Meanwhile, Obama's latest ad hits Romney over his tax cut plans, saying they will raise taxes on the middle class: "Mitt Romney's middle-class tax increase," it says. "He pays less. You pay more."
The spot echoes Obama's argument that Romney not only wants to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts but also would add $5trillion more in tax cuts.--Catalina Camia and David Jackson
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1436 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 3, 2012 Friday 10:35 PM EST
Romney responds to Reid: 'Put up or shut up';
Says White House probably behind accusations.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 298 words
Mitt Romney personally responded to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today, telling the Democrat to offer some proof of his tax claims or stop making them.
"It's time for Harry to put up or shut up," Romney told Fox News Radio.
Audio via the Daily Caller:
For days, Reid has been claiming that Romney paid no taxes for 10 years, saying a Bain investor and others told him so. Romney called the accusation "totally and completely wrong" and accused the White House of orchestrating the attack.
"Harry's going to have to describe who it is he spoke with because of course that's totally and completely wrong," he said. "It's untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It's wrong. So I'm looking forward to have Harry reveal his sources, and we'll probably find out it's the White House."
Reid responded in a statement that it was Romney who has "shut up" and now has the "obligation to put up, and release several years' worth of tax returns."
Earlier in the day, Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom offered his own sweeping denial and likened Reid's accusations to the anti-Communist witch hunt conducted by Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.).
"His charges are baseless and untrue," Fehrnstrom told the same radio station. "[T]his reminds me of the McCarthy hearings back in the 1950s, and it was another son from Massachusetts then, Joseph Welch, who finally asked the question that should be asked of Harry Reid, which is: Have you no sense of decency, sir?"
Romney has not released his tax returns from before 2010, leading Democrats to speculate that they contain hidden embarrassments. A recent Obama campaign ad said the Republican's secrecy on the issue "makes you wonder if some years he paid any taxes at all." But the president's team has not said anything in support of Reid's specific claims.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1437 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 3, 2012 Friday 9:13 PM EST
Democrats signal eagerness to face Todd Akin in Missouri;
Democratic groups have taken a keen interest in the GOP race, with an apparent eye to helping along the candidate they perceive as the least formidable general election foe.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 709 words
Next Tuesday, Republican primary voters will nominate a candidate to face Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in the general election. And in the weeks leading up to Election Day, Democratic groups have taken a keen interest in the GOP race, with an apparent eye to helping along the candidate they perceive as the least formidable general election foe.
The latest example is a new radio ad paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that attacks Rep. Todd Akin (R), but does so slyly, in a manner that appears to be designed to endear him to conservative voters.
"Todd Akin calls himself the true conservative, but is he too conservative?" asks the narrator of the ad, which is approved by McCaskill's campaign and paid for by the DSCC. The narrator goes on to note the negative posture Akin has taken toward President Obama, before concluding, "it's no surprise Todd has been endorsed by the most conservative leaders in our country - Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee."
Bachmann and Huckabee are popular among conservative voters and are from states in the same geographic region as Missouri. If anything, many undecided conservative primary voters who hear their names in the radio ad would be tempted to give him a closer look.
So why do Democrats appear eager to run against Akin? For starters, he is, as the Democratic ad says, very conservative. His nomination would open up the middle for McCaskill in a general election matchup. Secondly, he is unpredictable. Late last year, he shook up his campaignstaff. And earlier this week he released a head-scratching and jumbled campaign ad.
The new DSCC ad is notable because it's the third instance in which a major Democratic player has appeared to try shape the outcome of the GOP contest. McCaskill released a round of three negative ads last month that stood out because the anti-Akin ad, unlike the spots running against businessman John Brunner and former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman, cast the congressman as a "a crusader against bigger government." Before McCaskill's ad, the Democratic-aligned Majority PAC released an ad hitting Brunner.
Democrats maintain that their efforts are as much about the general election as the primary and that they cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and abstain from defining their potential opponents.
"Just like all the Republican Senate hopefuls in this race, Todd Akin's agenda is too right wing and out of touch with Missouri's middle class," said DSCC spokesman Matt Canter. "We are going to make sure Missouri voters understand the stark choice between Claire McCaskill and the extreme partisan ideology of whoever wins the Republican primary."
But taken together, the nuance of McCaskill's anti-Akin ad, the DSCC's decision to focus on the congressman, and Majority PAC's anti-Brunner spot suggest Democratic strategists believe there is utility in trying to influence the outcome of the primary.
According to a Republican strategist tracking ad buys in the race, McCaskill's campaign and Majority PAC have each spent about $850,000 on ads during the last two and a half weeks - more than Akin has spent on commercials during the entire campaign. So if Akin wins the primary, he might be able to credit some very unlikely allies. And his campaign cautions that it would be a mistake for Democrats to underestimate him.
"The suggestion that McCaskill would prefer to run against Akin would be a very unwise choice on her part," said Akin spokesman Ryan Hite. "Todd presents the clearest contrast and biggest difference in voting record to McCaskill."
Whomever McCaskill faces, the fall reelection campaign will be an uphill climb, especially since it is taking place in a state Mitt Romney is favored to win at the presidential level. A recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch/News 4 poll conducted by Mason Dixon Polling & Research Inc. showed the senator trailing all three Republicans, with Brunner holding the largest lead.
Three-way races are hard to predict. Brunner's personal money, Steelman's surrogate support (Sarah Palin is campaigning with her today) and the Democratic input could trigger an unexpected outcome next week. But one thing is for sure: Republicans are not going to be the only ones watching the returns once the polls close.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1438 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 3, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
Job growth 'moving sideways'
BYLINE: Peter Whoriskey
SECTION: A section; Pg. A10
LENGTH: 590 words
A drop in the number of jobless claims since June has raised hopes that the U.S. jobs situation is showing modest signs of improvement. But with the government's monthly unemployment report due Friday, many economists believe that the unemployment rate of 8.2 percent is unlikely to change much.
After three straight months of disappointing job growth, many analysts are expecting payrolls in the United States to have jumped by about 100,000 in July.
If so, that's a faster rate of growth than was recorded in April, May or June.
Since the labor force is growing at about the same rate as payrolls, however, little change in the rate of unemployment is expected.
"It just looks like we're moving sideways," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist for Capital Economics. "It's not going up, but then again it's not going down."
Whatever the numbers on Friday, they will be subject to immediate scrutiny by both sides in the presidential race.
The campaign of Republican Mitt Romney is depicting the U.S. economy as severely troubled.
"The economy is not just downshifting," Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told reporters on a conference call. "It is slipping into reverse."
President Obama has shrugged off such analyses and derided Romney's approach, calling it "top down economics."
"The basic idea is, is that if you give more tax breaks to the very wealthy, and you get rid of regulations on banks and polluters and health insurance companies, then somehow everybody is going to prosper," Obama told a crowd in Akron, Ohio, this week.
Given the government budget conflicts and the recession in Europe, the lackluster state of the U.S. economy seems likely to persist, economists said, and keep the economy in the doldrums. "These factors will be with us for quite a while," Ashworth said.
The anticipation of figures showing stronger job growth for July arises because the number of initial jobless claims has dropped from June to July.
A month ago, the initial jobless claims were averaging more than 386,000. That has come down to 365,500, according to Labor Department data. In addition, private payroll surveys have shown some signs of strength.
"If the job growth is above 100,000, it's better news than what we've had," said Gus Faucher, senior macroeconomist at PNC Financial Services Group. "It would appear that the slow patch we've had since April is over."
A disappointing jobs report, however, could motivate the Federal Reserve to act soon to stimulate the flagging recovery. So far, investors have been disappointed with the lack of strong action from central bankers as the global economy has slowed.
On Thursday, stock indexes slid for the fourth consecutive session. The sell-off was sparked after European Central Bank President Mario Draghi unveiled efforts to lowering borrowing costs of stressed euro-zone nations. The move failed to impress investors.The Dow Jones industrial average fell 0.7 percent to close at just under 12,879. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index closed at 1365, also 0.7 percent lower.
Factory orders also fell more than expected in June, another sign that the tepid recovery is discouraging businesses. Economists expected a 0.5 percent increase in orders, but instead saw a 0.5 percent decline.
One bright spot emerged Thursday: retailers. Their same-store sales last month exceeded analysts' expectations. Gap's stock, for instance, jumped nearly 13 percent in regular trading after it projected higher earnings for the latest quarter.
whoriskeyp@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1439 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 3, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 363 words
Why Republicans needlower-income voters this fall
We've spent a lot of time on this blog in recent weeks detailing the fact that a handful of wealthy donors have changed the presidential-election game by sending millions of dollars to GOP-leaning super PACs and outside groups.
Their commercials have helped Mitt Romney even the score in the 2012 ad battle.
But while the rich have certainly kept Romney in the game from early in the presidential race, he will rely on plenty of less-well-off voters if he is to win the election.
Case in point: Data from Sentier Research show that the less wealthy a state's voters are, the more likely the state is to be Republican. In total, eight of the 10 states with the highest average income are blue states, while the 10 states with the lowest income are all red states.
Part of this, of course, is because blue states tend to be more urban and have affluent population centers in the Northeast and on the West Coast, while red states tend to be more Southern and rural. There just isn't as much money in more rural areas of the country, but the cost of living is also much lower than in the city.
Exit polling in recent elections has shown that wealthy voters tend to vote more Republican (although those making more than $200,000 went for Obama in 2008), while lower-income people vote more Democratic.
But in 2000 and 2004, when the GOP won a pair of tight presidential races, they were able to snag 44 percent of voters in households pulling in less than $50,000 per year. That number dropped to 38 percent in 2008, when they lost, but rose to 43 percent in 2010, when the GOP made huge gains nationally.
The reason the lower-income vote is so key is that it's such a large portion of the population - 33 percent. The wealthiest of voters, on the other hand, make up a sliver of the overall electorate.
Those wealthy voters are great for Republicans when it comes to funding super PACs, but winning elections requires wooing many middle- and lower-middle-class voters.
That's why we've seen so much "fair share" talk from Team Obama. Time will tell whether it worked.
- Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1440 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 3, 2012 Friday 8:12 PM EST
BYLINE: Greg Sargent
SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A17
LENGTH: 360 words
Obama's real game plan
I strongly suspect that one of the Obama campaign's key strategic goals is to fight Mitt Romney to a draw on who can fix the economic crisis; the Obama team would love a win, but a draw may have to do. The battle can then be won on other turf - who can be trusted to protect middle-class interests while reforming entitlements and taxes, for example.
Two events Thursday spoke directly to this dynamic. First, the Obama campaign released a very harsh ad arguing that Romney would raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans to pay for a tax cut on millionaires like himself. Second, Romney released a new middle-class economic plan.
The latter contains ideas we've heard before from Romney: more access to domestic energy resources; repealing Obamacare; cutting taxes and capping spending.
So why release this plan now? It's interesting to consider that it comes in the wake of a CBS News/New York Times poll that found a majority of voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and a plurality of those in Florida, don't think Romney understands their needs. Majorities believe the opposite about Obama.
Yet the candidates are roughly tied on the question of who would do a better job on the economy. If the Obama camp can persuade swing voters that Romney isn't the answer to their problems, perhaps it can neutralize Romney's natural advantage on the issue as the alternative to an incumbent in a bad economy.
This is what the assault on Romney's Bain years, his tax returns and his offshore accounts is all about: creating a framework within which voters can be more easily convinced that Romney's policies would benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Obama's new ad hits this point hard, pointing out Romney's low tax rate on the $20 million he earned in 2010. "Romney's middle-class tax increase: He pays less; you pay more," it concludes.
Obama's best chance of hanging on amid a bad economy is convincing voters that, as disillusioned as they may be, Romney - even if he does have an aura of economic know-how - can't be trusted to look out for their interests while fixing it.
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1441 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 3, 2012 Friday 7:49 PM EST
President Obama is running out of time on the economy;
Another mediocre jobs report today would further tighten President Obama's political window to prove that the economy is strengthening before the November election.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 985 words
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its July jobs report this morning - an assessment that didn't exactly show considerable growth in the economy over the past month. And from a political perspective, that means one thing: President Obama is running out of time.
Why?
Because polling - both in this campaign and in past races - suggests that public perception on major issues (economy, Iraq, etc.) cements several months in advance of the actual vote, barring some sort of cataclysmic event.
The consistency of Obama's numbers on the economy is remarkable. Not since 2009 has a majority of Americans approved of how Obama is handling the economy in Washington Post-ABC News polling Couple that fact with the sustained pessimism about the direction of the country and faltering economic confidence ratings, and you get a very dangerous political brew for Obama - particularly this close to an election (95 days!).
What all of the data cited above mean is that, while there will be three more monthly jobs reports prior to voters voting, it may not ultimately matter what they say, unless of course they show massive gains (or losses).
Timing matters too - and could also hurt Obama.
Today's report is the last one before the two parties gather for their national conventions later this month and in early September.
Today's middling report may fuel Republican optimism and enthusiasm about the election - and likely have the exact opposite effect on Democrats.
The August jobs report is due out Sept. 7, one day after the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. A bad report could go a long way toward snuffing out any bump the president was hoping to enjoy post-convention. The September jobs report will come out on Oct. 5, two days after the first presidential debate and six days before the only vice presidential debate. The October report will be released Nov. 2, just four days before the election.
Viewed that way, the jobs reports could be a double whammy for Obama. Not only is he unlikely to get any political benefit from them unless the reports begin to show signs of real progress next mo nth, but they could also serve as major momentum-crushers for other major moments in the campaign to come.
In short: Things need to change quickly for Obama when it comes to the jobs numbers. If they don't, he will almost certainly face an electorate this fall - no matter what happens in October - that believes the economy is still sputtering and his plans to fix it haven't worked.
Solyndra e-mails show Rahm involvement: E-mails released as part of House Republicans' Solyndra probe indicate that then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel wanted Obama involved in the solar energy project.
"POTUS involvement was Rahm's idea," writes the deputy director of special projects.
Emanuel's involvement isn't news; his name appeared in emails released in 2011. But the new messages shed a little more light on the scandal. When asked about Solyndra last September, Emanuel said he didn't "remember that or know about it."
Another e-mail exchange shows the frustration in Obama's communications team, including Stephanie Cutter saying, "Ugh."
Reid releases new statement: Responding to criticism of his tax return accusations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reiterated Thursday night that "an extremely credible source" told him that Mitt Romney had not paid taxes for 10 years.
Echoing Romney's "put up or shut up" challenge, Reid said the candidate had "shut up" when it came to his tax returns, and "it's his obligation to put up and release several years' worth of tax returns."
He added, "It's clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is. "
Tennessee House members win primaries: A pair of GOP freshmen easily survived primaries Thursday in Tennessee.
Reps. Diane Black and Chuck Fleischmann both withstood significant challenges - Black against former congressional candidate Lou Ann Zelenik and Fleischmann in a crowded field that included the son of the man he succeeded, former congressman Zach Wamp.
Fleischmann took less than 40 percent of the vote, but Weston Wamp and another Republican split the rest of the vote, handing Fleischmann the nomination. Black took more than two-thirds of the vote in a one-on-one race with Zelenik.
In the only race on the national radar for the fall, Democratic state Sen. Eric Stewart was uncontested for the nomination to face freshman Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R). DesJarlais notably escaped what could have been a tough primary in a redrawn district, and he is not considered a top Democratic target.
Fixbits:
Obama's campaign is releasing an interactive map showing how much middle-class families would have to pay to offset Romney's tax cuts for the wealthy, according to a recent nonpartisan report.
The Republican National Committee is giving people a chance to send Obama not-so-well-wishing birthday cards.
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is up with another ad playing up a Democratic mayor's support.
Missouri Senate candidate Sarah Steelman (R) has poured another $100,000 of her own money into her campaign, bringing her self-funding total to more than $800,000. Sarah Palin is stumping for Steelman today.
Palin is backing former state House speaker Kirk Adams (R) in an open congressional race in Arizona.
A new Democratic poll shows Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) tied with Democrat Scott Peters. A recent Peters poll also showed a tie ballgame.
Must-reads:
"Obama and same-sex marriage: Will his stance cost him the African-American vote?" - Lisa Miller, Washington Post
"Palin hopes to extend winning streak with Missouri endorsement" - Rosalind S. Helderman and Paul Kane, Washington Post
"Obama's problems in the South" - Jonathan Martin, Politico
Rachel Weiner and Sean Sullivan contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1442 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 3, 2012 Friday 6:48 PM EST
'The worst economic recovery America has ever had': Scott Pelley's soon-to-be starring 2012 election role;
The CBS anchor's statement at the top of a broadcast two weeks ago that this is "the worst economic recovery America has ever seen" is kibble for Republican ad-makers.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 663 words
Expect to see lots of Scott Pelley on your TV this fall - even if you don't watch the CBS Evening News.
The CBS anchor's statement at the top of a broadcast two weeks ago that this is "the worst economic recovery America has ever seen" is kibble for Republican ad-makers.
Already, the clip has been used to punctuate an ad launched this week by Crossroads GPS, the issue advocacy arm of the American Crossroads super PAC. And you can bet the farm that GPS will hardly be the last to use it.
And in fact, it might be the one of the most valuable snippets the GOP has this fall.
For a few reasons:
1. It's short and clear
Most political ads are only 30 seconds long, so the more compact the sound bite, the better. Pelley's statement, from start to finish, is just about five seconds.
It's also totally unambiguous. Moreso than "You didn't build that" or "The private sector is doing fine," what Pelley was saying is completely clear to the viewer. There's really no way to read it wrong.
It's short, it's clear, it's to-the-point, it's emphatic. It also led off the broadcast (it begins with "Good evening" - which Crossroads left in the ad), and it's not couched by attribution to any outside source.
In other words, this is the big story, not just a throw-away line over the course of a newscast or political interview.
2. It's authoritative
No, Pelley is not the first to offer a grim evaluation of the country's economic recovery. Political commentator John Harwood and other reporters have also been featured in GOP ads talking about the stagnant economy.
Pelley, though, is an anchor for a major broadcast network's evening news. People know him more than they do Harwood or field reporters, and the chair he's sitting in carries with it more news-making authority than almost anyone else.
Now, at the same time, Pelley is not Walter Cronkite. Thanks to the proliferation of cable, the evening news is far less a part of American life than it was decades ago. People also have historically little faith in TV news, and Pelley, for what it's worth, has only been in the anchor's chair for a little more than a year (after a long stint at the very popular "60 Minutes," we should note). He's probably not a household name, even if he's recognizable to lots of people.
But the clip pretty clearly features a major broadcast news anchor leading off his broadcast with this quote. And that's a pretty strong picture, even if the days of Cronkite are long gone.
3. It feeds the emerging conventional wisdom
The "slowest recovery" line isn't yet conventional wisdom, but that appears to be changing - at least somewhat.
Former George W. Bush economic adviser Ed Lazear made a splash in April by arguing that the recovery was the slowest ever in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, but the same paper wrote a story last week on a study saying that the recovery was the second-slowest since World War II.
NBC News said in April that this was the "slowest recovery in memory." And Mitt Romney said in June that the jobs recovery was the slowest since the Great Depression - a claim that fact checkers found to be false.
If you want backup for what Pelley was saying, just have a look at the above chart from the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, which compares the economic recoveries during several periods since 1960.
As with most things in politics, though, whether what Pelley said is correct or not depends on what numbers you're looking at. Democrats point to bigger job growth in Obama's recovery than Bush's, although Bush's 2001 recession wasn't nearly as deep as this one. But so far, most media outlets aren't describing the recovery as the slowest ever.
In other words, there's not yet a consensus on this. So what Pelley was saying is news to plenty of people.
Republicans can use Pelley's words to help change that, and they will likely be a big part of a growing stockpile of dour economic footage in GOP ads this fall.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1443 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 3, 2012 Friday 11:30 AM EST
The case against Rob Portman for vice president;
Our case against picking the Ohio Republican senator for vice president.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza
LENGTH: 722 words
Earlier this week, we made the case that Ohio Sen. for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Today we argue the opposite case - a case that can be summed up by three "B's": Bush, budget and boring. (If you want a much longer case against Portman, be sure to check out theDemocratic super PAC American Bridge's briefing book on him.)
* Bush: If you watched the 265 (or so) Republican presidential primary debates earlier this year, you could have been forgiven if you thought the last GOPer to hold the White House was Ronald Reagan.
The eight years of George W. Bush's presidency are something Republicans seems ready to forget; neither Bush nor his vice president,later this month in Tampa, Florida.
Picking Portman would allow Democrats to cast the Romney-Portman ticket as a rehash of a failed (and very unpopular) Administration due to the Ohio Senator's close ties to the Bush(es).
Not only did Portman serve as the Office of Management and Budget Director (more on that soon) and U.S. Trade Representative in the last Bush Administration but he worked on the advance team of Poppy Bush's failed 1980 run for president. Heck, he even got a nickname from W. ("It's "The Mule".)
And it's not just that Portman rolls deep with the Bush clan. More broadly it's that he reeks of "establishment", a smell that wrinkles the nose of even many within the Republican party these days. Romney has been very careful not to associate himself too closely to Republicans (or anyone else) in Washington throughout the campaign - witness his condemnation of the tax deal cut by congressional Republicans with President Obama in 2010. Putting Portman on the ticket runs totally counter to that strategy.
* Budget: Mention Portman's name to any - literally, any - Democratic operative and they will immediately note that he was Bush's budget director - he served from June 2006 through August 2007 - even as federal spending was shooting through the roof.
Democrats have already test-driven the budget/spending attack on Portman. During his 2010 Senate campaign, Portman was attacked by Democrats in an ad for overseeing "a spending spree that doubled the deficit." (Portman won the race easily but that was due in large part to just how bad a candidate the Democratic nominee turned out to be.)
PolitiFact, a non-partisan fact-checking service, notedthat the 2008 budget process, which Portman oversaw, projected a deficit of nearly $459 billion - more than twice the $161 billion fiscal 2007 deficit.
Wrote PolitiFact of the Democratic ad: "While we acknowledge that Portman isn't the only factor - nor, perhaps, even the primary factor - in the course of both economic trends, we do think that in the middle of a campaign, challenging an opponent on his record in office is fair game."
Portman allies, of course, reject that frame, noting that the one year Portman had the OMB job - 2007 - the budget deficit was $161 billion, a fraction of President Obama's budget proposals. (Here's Portman making a similar point.)
(Portman clearly understands the political danger here, however. He has said of late that he was "frustrated" by the spending during the Bush years.)
Still, politics is politics. And Portman was the face - at least for a time - of the Bush budget. Democrats will never let Romney forget that reality if Portman is the pick and, they believe, Portman on the ticket could help neutralize their own vulnerabilities on federal spending.
* Boring: Portman is not exactly Mr. Exciting. (When your calling card for charisma is a chicken impersonation, it's pretty slim pickings in the personality department.)
That wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that Romney has already slogged through months of coverage about how he lacks the common touch. Given that, doubling down on the bland, middle-aged white guy quotient on the Republican ticket could be a major mistake.
And, remember that Republicans have long battled the perception that the GOP is a party of old(er) white men and, perhaps not coincidentally, have struggled mightily to win large percentages of minority voters - most notably Hispanics. (In 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain took just 31 percent among Latino voters.)
Portman as vice presidential pick would do nothing to address Republicans' mounting demographic problems - in fact he might help exacerbate them.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1444 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 3, 2012 Friday 12:59 AM EST
Why Republicans need lower-income voters in 2012;
While the rich are certainly keeping Romney in the game early in the presidential race, Romney will rely on plenty of less-well-off voters if he is to win the presidential race this year.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 379 words
We've spent a lot of time on this blog in recent weeks detailing the fact that a handful of wealthy donors have changed the presidential election game by sending millions of dollars to GOP-leaning super PACs and outside groups.
Those commercials have helped Mitt Romney even the score in the 2012 ad game.
But while the rich are certainly keeping Romney in the game early in the presidential race, he will rely on plenty of less-well-off voters if he is to win the presidential race this year.
Case in point: the chart below, which is based on data from Sentier Research and shows various measures of income in three sets of states - red states, blue states and swing states.
As you can see, the less wealthy a state's voters are, the more likely the state is to be Republican. In total, eight of the 10 states with the highest average income are blue states, while the 10 states with the lowest income are all red states.
Here's another way of looking at it:
Part of this, of course, is because blue states tend to be more urban and have affluent population centers in the Northeast and on the West Coast, while red states tend to be more Southern and rural. There just isn't as much money in more rural areas of the country, but the cost of living is also much cheaper than it is in the city.
Exit polling in recent elections has shown wealthy voters do tend to vote more Republican (though those making more than $200,000 went for Obama in 2008), while lower-income people vote more Democratic.
But in 2000 and 2004, when the GOP won a pair of tight presidential races, they were able to snag 44 percent of voters in households pulling in less than $50,000 per year. That number dropped to 38 percent in 2008, when they lost, but rose to 43 percent in 2010, when the GOP made huge gains nationally.
The reason the lower-income vote is so key is that it's such a large portion of the population - 33 percent. The wealthiest of voters, on the other hand, comprise a sliver of the overall electorate.
Those wealthy voters are great for Republicans when it comes to funding super PACs, but winning elections requires wooing many middle- and lower-middle-class voters.
That's why we've seen so much "fair share" talk from Team Obama. Time will tell about whether it worked.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1445 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 3, 2012 Friday
Met 2 Edition
Job growth 'moving sideways'
BYLINE: Peter Whoriskey
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A10
LENGTH: 583 words
A drop in the number of jobless claims since June has raised hopes that the U.S. jobs situation is showing modest signs of improvement.
But with the government's monthly unemployment report due Friday, many economists believe that the unemployment rate of 8.2 percent is unlikely to change much.
After three straight months of disappointing job growth, many analysts are expecting payrolls in the United States to have jumped by about 100,000 in July.
If so, that's a faster rate of growth than was recorded in April, May or June.
Since the labor force is growing at about the same rate as payrolls, however, little change in the rate of unemployment is expected.
"It just looks like we're moving sideways," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist for Capital Economics. "It's not going up, but then again it's not going down."
Whatever the numbers on Friday, they will be subject to immediate scrutiny by both sides in the presidential race.
The campaign of Republican Mitt Romney is depicting the U.S. economy as severely troubled.
"The economy is not just downshifting," Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told reporters on a conference call. "It is slipping into reverse."
President Obama has shrugged off such analyses and derided Romney's approach, calling it "top down economics."
"The basic idea is, is that if you give more tax breaks to the very wealthy, and you get rid of regulations on banks and polluters and health insurance companies, then somehow everybody is going to prosper," Obama told a crowd in Akron, Ohio, this week.
Given the government budget conflictsand the recession in Europe, the lackluster state of the U.S. economy seems likely to persist, economists said, and keep the economy in the doldrums.
"These factors will be with us for quite a while," Ashworth said.
The anticipation of figures showing stronger job growth for July arises because the number of initial jobless claims has dropped from June to July.
A month ago, the initial jobless claims were averaging more than 386,000. That has come down to 365,500, according to Labor Department data. In addition, private payroll surveys have shown some signs of strength.
"If the job growth is above 100,000, it's better news than what we've had," said Gus Faucher, senior macroeconomist at PNC Financial Services Group. "It would appear that the slow patch we've had since April is over."
A disappointing jobs report, however, could motivate the Federal Reserve to act soon to stimulate the flagging recovery. So far, investors have been disappointed with the lack of strong action from central bankers as the global economy has slowed.
On Thursday, stock indexes slid for the fourth consecutive session. The sell-off was sparked after European Central Bank President Mario Draghi unveiled efforts to lowering borrowing costs of stressed euro-zone nations. The move failed to impress investors.
The Dow Jones industrial average fell 0.7 percent to close at just under 12,879. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index closed at 1365, also 0.7 percent lower.
Factory orders also fell more than expected in June, another sign that the tepid recovery is discouraging businesses. Economists expected a 0.5 percent increase in orders, but instead saw a 0.5 percent decline.
One bright spot emerged Thursday: retailers. Their same-store sales last month exceeded analysts' expectations. Gap's stock, for instance, jumped nearly 13 percent in regular trading after it projected higher earnings for the latest quarter.
whoriskeyp@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1446 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 3, 2012 Friday
Suburban Edition
BYLINE: - Aaron Blake
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 352 words
Why Republicans needlower-income voters this fall
We've spent a lot of time on this blog in recent weeks detailing the fact that a handful of wealthy donors have changed the presidential-election game by sending millions of dollars to GOP-leaning super PACs and outside groups.
Their commercials have helped Mitt Romney even the score in the 2012 ad battle.
But while the rich have certainly kept Romney in the game from early in the presidential race, he will rely on plenty of less-well-off voters if he is to win the election.
Case in point: Data from Sentier Research show that the less wealthy a state's voters are, the more likely the state is to be Republican. In total, eight of the 10 states with the highest average income are blue states, while the 10 states with the lowest income are all red states.
Part of this, of course, is because blue states tend to be more urban and have affluent population centers in the Northeast and on the West Coast, while red states tend to be more Southern and rural. There just isn't as much money in more rural areas of the country, but the cost of living is also much lower than in the city.
Exit polling in recent elections has shown that wealthy voters tend to vote more Republican (although those making more than $200,000 went for Obama in 2008), while lower-income people vote more Democratic.
But in 2000 and 2004, when the GOP won a pair of tight presidential races, they were able to snag 44 percent of voters in households pulling in less than $50,000 per year. That number dropped to 38 percent in 2008, when they lost, but rose to 43 percent in 2010, when the GOP made huge gains nationally.
The reason the lower-income vote is so key is that it's such a large portion of the population - 33 percent. The wealthiest of voters, on the other hand, make up a sliver of the overall electorate.
Those wealthy voters are great for Republicans when it comes to funding super PACs, but winning elections requires wooing many middle- and lower-middle-class voters.
That's why we've seen so much "fair share" talk from Team Obama. Time will tell whether it worked.
- Aaron Blake
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1447 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 3, 2012 Friday
Suburban Edition
BYLINE: Greg Sargent
SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A17
LENGTH: 350 words
Obama's real game plan
I strongly suspect that one of the Obama campaign's key strategic goals is to fight Mitt Romney to a draw on who can fix the economic crisis; the Obama team would love a win, but a draw may have to do. The battle can then be won on other turf - who can be trusted to protect middle-class interests while reforming entitlements and taxes, for example.
Two events Thursday spoke directly to this dynamic. First, the Obama campaign released a very harsh ad arguing that Romney would raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans to pay for a tax cut on millionaires like himself. Second, Romney released a new middle-class economic plan.
The latter contains ideas we've heard before from Romney: more access to domestic energy resources; repealing Obamacare; cutting taxes and capping spending.
So why release this plan now? It's interesting to consider that it comes in the wake of a CBS News/New York Times poll that found a majority of voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and a plurality of those in Florida, don't think Romney understands their needs. Majorities believe the opposite about Obama.
Yet the candidates are roughly tied on the question of who would do a better job on the economy. If the Obama camp can persuade swing voters that Romney isn't the answer to their problems, perhaps it can neutralize Romney's natural advantage on the issue as the alternative to an incumbent in a bad economy.
This is what the assault on Romney's Bain years, his tax returns and his offshore accounts is all about: creating a framework within which voters can be more easily convinced that Romney's policies would benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Obama's new ad hits this point hard, pointing out Romney's low tax rate on the $20 million he earned in 2010. "Romney's middle-class tax increase: He pays less; you pay more," it concludes.
Obama's best chance of hanging on amid a bad economy is convincing voters that, as disillusioned as they may be, Romney - even if he does have an aura of economic know-how - can't be trusted to look out for their interests while fixing it.
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1448 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 2, 2012 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
Obama Says Romney's Tax Plan Favors Wealthy Only
BYLINE: By JACKIE CALMES
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 790 words
AKRON, Ohio -- President Obama assailed Mitt Romney for ''top-down economics'' in his ninth trip this year to this battleground state, brandishing a new study showing that Mr. Romney's plans would mean additional large tax cuts for millionaires at the expense of other Americans.
Mr. Obama's appearances in north-central Ohio, first in Mansfield and then here, came as new polls continue to show voters split over his stewardship of the economy. He will take his case to Florida on Thursday, but on Friday the release of the monthly unemployment report could do more than any presidential words to shape voters' views.
Facing an estimated 3,000 people at a convention center here, Mr. Obama was fired up as he explained what his campaign characterizes as the fundamental differences between him and Mr. Romney over tax and spending priorities at a time of rising debt.
''Pay attention here,'' Mr. Obama said. ''Folks making more than $3 million a year -- the top one-tenth of 1 percent -- they would get a tax cut under Mr. Romney's plan that is worth almost a quarter of a million dollars.''
''Hold on, it gets worse,'' he added to a chorus of boos. ''My opponent says he's going to pay for this $5 trillion plan. But under this plan, guess who gets the bill for these $250,000 tax cuts? You do. And you don't have to take my word for it.''
Mr. Obama cited a new study from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two centrist Washington-based policy research organizations. The analysis concluded that the sort of tax code that Mr. Romney has proposed ''would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.''
In Akron and earlier before about 2,000 supporters in Mansfield, Mr. Obama singled out the study's finding that if Mr. Romney reduced or eliminated other tax breaks to offset the revenue loss of his tax cuts -- as he has promised, without specifics -- the changes would shift $86 billion of the tax burden away from the high-income taxpayers and onto everyone else. Americans would lose some or all of existing tax breaks for mortgages, college tuition and health insurance.
''This wasn't my staff, this wasn't something we did -- an independent group ran the numbers,'' Mr. Obama said.
The Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee quickly dismissed the study as partisan, noting that one of its three authors had been on the staff of Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Perhaps in response to the criticism, at his second appearance Mr. Obama noted that another author was on the economic staff of the first President George Bush. The Tax Policy Center is widely respected in both parties, and its director was an economic adviser to President George W. Bush.
Mr. Obama literally flew into a separate controversy here: Air Force One first landed at a Mansfield air base that is home to the 179th Air National Guard Wing, whose C-27J aircraft would be mothballed under the administration's proposed reductions in Pentagon spending. Republicans led by Senator Rob Portman of Ohio drew reporters' attention to local coverage of the issue before the president arrived.
Mr. Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters on Air Force One that the Pentagon would work to find a new mission for the roughly 800 Guard members at the base -- news that Ohio's other senator, Sherrod Brown, a Democrat running for re-election, trumpeted in a news release but that the Romney campaign attacked as a politically motivated flip-flop.
The president has an advantage of six percentage points over Mr. Romney among likely voters in Ohio, according to new polls for Quinnipiac University/The New York Times/CBS News.
While independent voters strongly support Mr. Obama in next-door Pennsylvania, those in Ohio and in Florida split. Just over half of independents in Ohio and Florida disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance. But Ohio voters were more likely than not to say that Mr. Romney's experience as a private-equity manager was too focused on earning profits for investors and not enough on creating jobs.
That finding most likely reflects the abundance of negative ads that the Obama campaign has run in swing states. It began broadcasting a new ad here and in five other states drawing parallels between Mr. Romney's agenda for increased military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy and that of Mr. Obama's predecessor, Mr. Bush.
Mr. Romney's campaign also had a new ad in Ohio, seeking to turn against Mr. Obama an issue that has played to his advantage: the auto industry rescue that Mr. Romney opposed. The ad featured a man whose auto dealership was among those closed under the industry consolidation.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: August 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: President Obama speaking on Wednesday at a campaign event in Mansfield, Ohio, his ninth trip to the swing state this year. (PHOTOGRAPH BY LUKE SHARRETT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1449 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 2, 2012 Thursday
Ad Watch: Obama Campaign Seeks to Recast Romney as Tax Raiser
BYLINE: PETER BAKER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 555 words
HIGHLIGHT: "He pays less. You pay more" is the theme of a new Obama campaign ad, which seeks to trumpet the results of a new study of Mitt Romney's tax plan.
5:40 p.m. | Updated The Obama campaign is wasting no time getting an ad on the air touting a new study showing that Mitt Romney's plans would mean additional large tax cuts for millionaires at the expense of other Americans. The spot, titled "Stretch" takes a double-barreled approach, beginning by reminding viewers of Mr. Romney's own tax history, before pivoting to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two centrist Washington-based policy research organizations. The ad will air in eight battleground states.
Click on a subsection below to jump to a fact check.
YouTube
0:06 Higher Taxes Than Romney
Mr. Romney and his wife paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent on $21.6 million in adjusted gross income in 2010, a rate typical of households earning about $80,000, because his income came largely from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than salaries and wages.
0:17 Tax Breaks for Millionaires
Mr. Romney's plan would cut income tax rates by 20 percent among other tax breaks; he promises to make the plan "revenue neutral," meaning that the lost revenue would be offset so it would not increase the deficit, but he has not said specifically how he would do that. The Tax Policy Center, filling in the gaps, assumed that he would have to eliminate various tax breaks like mortgage deductions that would result in a net tax increase for 95 percent of taxpayers while the wealthiest 5 percent pay less.
0:21 Taxing the Middle Class
He has not proposed raising taxes on middle class families by $2,000 as the ad suggests, but that is what the campaign argues would be the effect of the plan he has outlined, citing a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Those in middle income brackets would pay on average $546 more a year, according to the study, and upper-middle class taxpayers would pay $1,880 more, while the taxes of the richest 1 percent would be cut by $29,282. Mr. Romney's advisers said the study was flawed because it did not account for economic growth they believe would be stimulated by a separate plan to restructure corporate taxes and by lowered deficits. Moreover, they said Mr. Romney would not necessarily pick the same measures to draw in more tax revenue as the center chose. And they called the study biased because one of the three co-authors, Adam Looney, worked for Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Another, William G. Gale, worked for the elder President George Bush but has publicly supported ending the tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush in favor of a broader tax code overhaul. Still, the director of the Tax Policy Center, Donald Marron, was a member of the younger Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
Scorecard
Mr. Obama is trying to turn the tax argument around. The Supreme Court recently upheld his health care law by defining its penalty for not buying insurance as a tax, and he has supported letting tax rates rise back to their level in the 1990s on income over $250,000. With this ad, he paints his opponent as a tax increaser and skewers him for seemingly favoring the rich over the middle class.
Brown Takes Slap at Ad, and Bill Clinton
G.O.P. Web Ads Recall Kerry to the Same Tune
Giuliani Ad Touts Romney's Praise
Huckabee Goes Positive in New Ads
If She Had Been President ...
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1450 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 2, 2012 Thursday
Ad Watch: Obama Campaign Seeks to Recast Romney as Tax Raiser
BYLINE: PETER BAKER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 502 words
HIGHLIGHT: "He pays less. You pay more" is the theme of a new Obama campaign ad, which seeks to trumpet the results of a new study of Mitt Romney's tax plan.
5:40 p.m. | Updated The Obama campaign is wasting no time getting an ad on the air touting a new study showing that Mitt Romney's plans would mean additional large tax cuts for millionaires at the expense of other Americans. The spot, titled "Stretch" takes a double-barreled approach, beginning by reminding viewers of Mr. Romney's own tax history, before pivoting to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two centrist Washington-based policy research organizations. The ad will air in eight battleground states.
Click on a subsection below to jump to a fact check.
0:17 Tax Breaks for Millionaires
Mr. Romney's plan would cut income tax rates by 20 percent among other tax breaks; he promises to make the plan "revenue neutral," meaning that the lost revenue would be offset so it would not increase the deficit, but he has not said specifically how he would do that. The Tax Policy Center, filling in the gaps, assumed that he would have to eliminate various tax breaks like mortgage deductions that would result in a net tax increase for 95 percent of taxpayers while the wealthiest 5 percent pay less.
0:21 Taxing the Middle Class
He has not proposed raising taxes on middle class families by $2,000 as the ad suggests, but that is what the campaign argues would be the effect of the plan he has outlined, citing a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Those in middle income brackets would pay on average $546 more a year, according to the study, and upper-middle class taxpayers would pay $1,880 more, while the taxes of the richest 1 percent would be cut by $29,282. Mr. Romney's advisers said the study was flawed because it did not account for economic growth they believe would be stimulated by a separate plan to restructure corporate taxes and by lowered deficits. Moreover, they said Mr. Romney would not necessarily pick the same measures to draw in more tax revenue as the center chose. And they called the study biased because one of the three co-authors, Adam Looney, worked for Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Another, William G. Gale, worked for the elder President George Bush but has publicly supported ending the tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush in favor of a broader tax code overhaul. Still, the director of the Tax Policy Center, Donald Marron, was a member of the younger Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
Scorecard
Mr. Obama is trying to turn the tax argument around. The Supreme Court recently upheld his health care law by defining its penalty for not buying insurance as a tax, and he has supported letting tax rates rise back to their level in the 1990s on income over $250,000. With this ad, he paints his opponent as a tax increaser and skewers him for seemingly favoring the rich over the middle class.
Brown Takes Slap at Ad, and Bill Clinton
G.O.P. Web Ads Recall Kerry to the Same Tune
Giuliani Ad Touts Romney's Praise
Huckabee Goes Positive in New Ads
If She Had Been President ...
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1451 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 2, 2012 Thursday
Ad Watch: Obama Campaign Seeks to Recast Romney as Tax Raiser
BYLINE: PETER BAKER
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 502 words
HIGHLIGHT: "He pays less. You pay more" is the theme of a new Obama campaign ad, which seeks to trumpet the results of a new study of Mitt Romney's tax plan.
5:40 p.m. | Updated The Obama campaign is wasting no time getting an ad on the air touting a new study showing that Mitt Romney's plans would mean additional large tax cuts for millionaires at the expense of other Americans. The spot, titled "Stretch" takes a double-barreled approach, beginning by reminding viewers of Mr. Romney's own tax history, before pivoting to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two centrist Washington-based policy research organizations. The ad will air in eight battleground states.
Click on a subsection below to jump to a fact check.
0:17 Tax Breaks for Millionaires
Mr. Romney's plan would cut income tax rates by 20 percent among other tax breaks; he promises to make the plan "revenue neutral," meaning that the lost revenue would be offset so it would not increase the deficit, but he has not said specifically how he would do that. The Tax Policy Center, filling in the gaps, assumed that he would have to eliminate various tax breaks like mortgage deductions that would result in a net tax increase for 95 percent of taxpayers while the wealthiest 5 percent pay less.
0:21 Taxing the Middle Class
He has not proposed raising taxes on middle class families by $2,000 as the ad suggests, but that is what the campaign argues would be the effect of the plan he has outlined, citing a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Those in middle income brackets would pay on average $546 more a year, according to the study, and upper-middle class taxpayers would pay $1,880 more, while the taxes of the richest 1 percent would be cut by $29,282. Mr. Romney's advisers said the study was flawed because it did not account for economic growth they believe would be stimulated by a separate plan to restructure corporate taxes and by lowered deficits. Moreover, they said Mr. Romney would not necessarily pick the same measures to draw in more tax revenue as the center chose. And they called the study biased because one of the three co-authors, Adam Looney, worked for Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Another, William G. Gale, worked for the elder President George Bush but has publicly supported ending the tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush in favor of a broader tax code overhaul. Still, the director of the Tax Policy Center, Donald Marron, was a member of the younger Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.
Scorecard
Mr. Obama is trying to turn the tax argument around. The Supreme Court recently upheld his health care law by defining its penalty for not buying insurance as a tax, and he has supported letting tax rates rise back to their level in the 1990s on income over $250,000. With this ad, he paints his opponent as a tax increaser and skewers him for seemingly favoring the rich over the middle class.
Brown Takes Slap at Ad, and Bill Clinton
G.O.P. Web Ads Recall Kerry to the Same Tune
Giuliani Ad Touts Romney's Praise
Huckabee Goes Positive in New Ads
If She Had Been President ...
LOAD-DATE: August 3, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1452 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 2, 2012 Thursday 10:23 PM EST
Romney's favorability falling in Pew polls;
Pew shows Romney sinking, Boehner says Obama has never worked a real job, Rafalca thrilled in the Olympics and Bill Nelson plays the Hooters card.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 642 words
Pew shows Romney sinking, Boehner says Obama has never worked a real job, Rafalca thrilled in the Olympics and Bill Nelson plays the Hooters card.
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your e-mail inbox every day by 5 (ish) p.m!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Americans for Prosperity launches $25 million ad buy
President Obama's foreign policy ratings - and what Mitt Romney is trying to do about it
The case against Rob Portman for vice president
Democratic super PAC reserves air time in House races
President Obama's job creation problem - in one chart (with caveats)
Harry Reid doubles down on Romney taxes; Romney campaign responds
Why Republicans need lower-income voters in 2012
New Obama ad: Romney would raise your taxes to lower his own
Why attacking super PACs won't work
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* After rising from March to June as Republicans rallied around him, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's image has slipped over the past month in Pew polling of registered voters. Voters now view him negatively by a 52 to 37 percent margin. Obama is viewed positively by a 50 to 45 percent margin. The same poll has Obama beating Romney 51 to 41 percent, a wider lead than other recent surveys, although in swing states that narrows to a four-point lead. However, Pew's poll sampled 13 percent more Democrats than Republicans.
* House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a Fox News radio interview today that President Obama has "never even had a real job, for God's* sake" and that "I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works." (Boehner, for what its worth, worked in the plastics industry before becoming a congressman.)
* Rafalca "thrilled me to death" with her Olympic dressage performance, Ann Romney said today. "She was consistent and elegant." Romney watched the horse she co-owns from the VIP section; she won't know if the horse (and rider Jan Ebeling) advance to the Grand Prix Special until tomorrow.
* "Women's issues are front and center as they should be," President Obama told the female bloggers at BlogHer today. "But the conversation has been oversimplified a bit. Anyone who has spent time at your conference would realize that women are not a monolithic bloc, not an interest group."
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* A day after coming out with his first ad, a positive spot, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is going negative. And how. He identifies Rep. Connie Mack (R) as "a promoter for Hooters with a history of barroom brawling, altercations and road rage." The hits on Mack's debt, attendance record, and vote for the Ryan budget seem almost tame by comparison.
* Romney touted a five-point plan for the middle-class in Colorado today. The policies are not new, but now he is aggressively selling them around the country. He also came out with a "report card" to judge Obama by his 2008 promises. And he met with McKayla Hicks, a survivor of the Aurora shooting. "We love you and we pray for you," he said of the victims.
* The Maine state GOP is headed to war over an attempt to purge Ron Paul supporters from the state's convention delegation. Two Romney supporters filed a challenge to 14 Paul-backing delegates; in response, 23 members are calling for a special meeting.
* Rick Gorka, the Romney campaign spokesman who shouted at reporters in Poland, is "taking some time off the trail," an aide tells ABC News. Meanwhile, Romney's campaign blames the Associated Press for making the candidate's comments about Israeli and Palestinian culture into a controversy.
THE FIX MIX:
If you haven't seen enough gymnastics.
* Boehner said "God's sake, not Christ's sake. This sentence has been corrected.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1453 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 2, 2012 Thursday 8:27 PM EST
Obama's new campaign ad on dueling budget plans;
The president takes some liberties with Mitt Romney's plans--and his own.
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 849 words
"Mitt Romney's plan? A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires ...increase military spending...adding trillions to the deficit. Or President Obama's plan? A balanced approach ...Four trillion in deficit reduction."
- Voiceover in a new Obama campaign ad
In just 30 seconds, this new Obama campaign ad covers a lot of ground, evoking images of the George W. Bush administration ("two wars ...tax cuts for millionaires"), tying presumed GOP nominee Mitt Romney to those policies and then ending with positive words for President Obama's plans. (There's even an amazing shot of a super-millionaire's home.)
At least the ad is about policy differences, rather than the usual campaign fare of outsourcing, Bain and verbal gaffes. Let's take a deeper look.
The Facts
The Obama campaign has to perform some leaps of logic because, frankly, the Romney campaign has not explained how his budget and tax numbers add up. Romney has proposed to cut tax rates, but keep revenue neutral with unspecified offsets, while also boosting defense spending while reducing the deficit through largely unspecified cuts. Pinning down the actual figures is a bit like nailing Jello to a wall.
Many experts would say Romney's proposals are simply mathematically impossible, unless one engages in budget gimmicks, such as assuming tax cuts will largely pay for themselves. A new studyreleased Wednesday by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that, even accounting for higher economic growth, there is no way for Romney to meet his targets without also boosting taxes on middle and lower income taxpayers.
The Romney campaign rejected the analysis, saying it had "gaps," such as not including the potential impact from corporate tax reforms advocated by Romney. Still, the analysis said that the average tax cut for a taxpayer making more than $1 million would be about $87,000 - much lower than the ad's claim of $250,000.
So how does the Obama campaign come up with a figure of $250,000? The campaign cites an earlier Tax Policy Center study that did not include an effort to consider the possible tax loopholes and credits that Romney could eliminate in an effort to keep his tax reforms revenue neutral. The study is even headlined: "Romney Tax Plan without Unspecified Base Broadeners."
Now, of course, the Obama campaign ad was prepared before the new analysis was released, so we can't ding it for that. But campaign officials presumably knew that it was an incomplete picture. After all, the White House had earlier calculated that a similar House Republican plan would result in a $107,000 tax break for the wealthy after eliminating every possible tax loophole.
(Note: After the study was released, Obama adjusted his language in speeches Wednesday to say that people making more than $3 million would get a $250,000 tax cut.)
The same dynamic holds true for the ad's claim that Romney's plans would add "trillions to the deficit."
The Obama campaign cites studies that show Romney's tax cuts - without the unspecified offsets - would add to the deficit. In theory, however, Romney's economic plan would dramatically reduce spending, since he proposes a cap at 20 percent of the gross domestic product (down from the current 24 percent). But that would require at least $600 billion in annual budget cuts, and he identifies less than $300 billion, including $60 billion from that old budget gimmick - reduce waste and fraud.
Meanwhile, Obama plays his own budget games. The claim that his budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply laughable. The figure includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.
Moreover, the administration is also counting $848 billion in phantom savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. There are a number of other games being played, so fake money is being used to pay for real spending projects. In effect, most of Obama's claimed deficit reduction comes from his proposed tax increases. (We wrote about this in more detail in a previous column.)
The Pinocchio Test
With incomplete figures and an unbalanced analysis, the Obama campaign is casting Romney's economic plan in the worst possible light while putting an unwarranted sheen on the president's proposals.
Romney's continued failure to provide enough specifics about his plans certainly lets the Obama campaign openly speculate about the impact. The president, by contrast, is required to present a real budget with actual figures - but as we have shown, he can still play budget tricks to make the numbers add up. So even more detail from Romney might not make the budget dispute any clearer.
Two Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1454 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 2, 2012 Thursday 8:12 PM EST
Hundreds of ads a day hit Ohio airwaves
BYLINE: David Nakamura
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 856 words
MANSFIELD, OHIO - In the air wars of the 2012 presidential campaign, this industrial town of 45,000 could stake a claim as ground zero. President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney are spending more money than ever on television advertising in crucial electoral battlegrounds, meaning that residents of Mansfield have been subject to the most intense political ad blitz in history.
Located almost equidistant between Cleveland and Columbus, and able to watch stations in both of Ohio's top media markets, Mansfield's TV viewers were subject to more than 12,000 presidential political ads in July alone, from the campaigns and from political action committees aligned with them.
This unprecedented pace - nearly 400 ads per day, or 16 every hour - is double that of July 2008, underscoring how enormous sums of money have changed the nature of the 2012 race.On Wednesday, Obama appeared before about 2,100 people at a campaign rally in Mansfield before heading to nearby Akron for a second event. His appearance was previewed Tuesday evening by - what else? - new attack ads from each side.
"Unless you've been hiding from your television, you might be aware there's an intense campaign going on right now," the president deadpanned at the start of his remarks.
His newest ad, titled "Worried," attacks Romney for proposing tax cuts for millionaires and new military spending that would drive up the deficit - a message that dovetailed with Obama's remarks at the rally.
"The bulk of his tax cut would go to the very top, a lot to the wealthiest 1 percent," he said.
So far, the Obama campaign has outspent Romney in Ohio, accusing him of outsourcing jobs overseas while at Bain Capital and demanding that he release more of his tax returns. The ads seem to be helping Obama; a new Quinnipiac University-CBS News-New York Times poll shows him leading Romney 50 percent to 44 percent in Ohio. The advertising has filled the coffers of television executives - Cleveland ranks second in the nation in political ad spending, and Columbus ranks eighth - and made it virtually impossible for local residents to escape the daily infighting. The 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. block Tuesday on Cleveland's WKYC, an NBC affiliate, was saturated with seven ads: two apiece from the campaigns, one each from the Republican and Democratic national committees, and one from Restore Our Future, a Romney-aligned super PAC.
"They all kind of bleed together. They're all kind of malicious," said Aurelio Diaz, 36, of Mansfield, who works at a center for disabled people and describes himself as politically independent.
While watching the Olympics this week, Mansfield Mayor Timothy Theaker (R) said, he saw a presidential ad during almost every break. "It's an eye-opening experience . . . to see all the negativity," he said.
The ads track closely with the daily campaign, with both sides playing off news events (a new pro-Romney spot features Olympic gold medal figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi endorsing him) and trying to exploit their opponents' records and gaffes.
Romney's newest ad, titled "Dream," says Ohio car dealerships "were forced to close" in the wake of the Obama administration's 2009 bailout of the U.S. auto industry. The spot features a man who had to shutter his GM dealership in Lyndhurst, outside Cleveland. Obama has said the bailout saved jobs and helped General Motors and Chrysler rebound from near-bankruptcy, and that message has played well in heavily unionized areas of northeast Ohio. But here in Richland County, where Obama lost in 2008, 56 percent to 43 percent, the president could be more vulnerable.
A GM plant in Ontario, a town that borders Mansfield, closed in 2010, eliminating 1,200 jobs. The shuttered plant, surrounded by a barbed-wire fence, is in the process of being bought by a developer. But previous attempts to redevelop it have fallen through, said Gary Utt, a Democratic county commissioner who worked for GM for 26 years.
Across the street, Josh Mueck, 35, who owns a tractor equipment company that employs four people, said Romney's recent ad attacking Obama for saying "you didn't build that" while talking about small-business owners struck a chord. "That showed me what I always believed" about Obama, Mueck said. "His belief in the collective, that every idea belongs to society instead of to the person."
But Chris Elswick, 47, a school board member who supports Obama, called the ad an "outright lie" that was "edited together to look like he was saying something negative about small business." Elswick, who owns an appliance repair company, said he found a longer version of the president's remarks online that provided more context.And Elswick has adopted a trick to escape some of the daily air assault.
"We live in a world of TiVo," he said. "You record your show, and when the ads come on, you zip right through them. I honestly think at this point that 95 percent of people have made up their minds already anyway."
nakamurad@washpost.com
T.W. Farnam contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1455 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 2, 2012 Thursday 3:36 PM EST
Why attacking super PACs won't work;
New Post/Pew pollling shows that wide swaths of the country know little or nothing about super PACs, a lack of knowledge that makes it very hard to turn the outside organizations into a campaign issue.
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1060 words
A large majority of the country lack even the most basic knowledge of so-called super PACs, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll - a finding that reinforces the difficulty Democrats face in trying to score political points by shining a light on these outside organizations in the 2012 presidential campaign.
Three-quarters of Americans have either heard "a little" (36 percent) or "nothing at all" (39 percent) about "increased spending in this year's presidential election by outside groups not associated with the candidates or campaigns."
In an even more stunning finding, when prompted with four choices as to what a super PAC actually was, just four in 10 said it was "a group able to accept unlimited political donations" - the right answer.
Forty-six percent had no opinion or didn't know what a super PAC was, while 9 percent said it was a name for the congressional committee charged with reducing the deficit (that's the "supercommittee"), and another 4 percent said it was a term for the government cleanup at hazardous waste sites (superfund). One percent of those tested said a super PAC was a "video game for a smart phone." And, no, that last sentence is not a joke.
(In fairness to the American public, knowledge of campaign finance lingo is hardly a prerequisite for good citizenship. But one can only wonder how many people might be able to accurately describe a super PAC if the correct answer wasn't one of four choices with which they were prompted.)
In addition the the broad lack of information about super PACs, there is a general sense that the groups, which can raise and spend unlimited sums on direct advocacy for or against a candidate, don't strongly benefit President Obama or former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
Fifty-one percent of those tested said super PACs didn't help one candidate more than the other - far more than the 16 percent who said they helped Romney more and the 15 percent who said they aided Obama more. (The correct answer, of course, is that they have been helping Romney more - by a lot.)
What all the numbers above prove is that, for all the hue and cry - particularly among Democrats - about how a small group of very wealthy donors are exerting undue influence on the 2012 election via Republican super PACs, that argument shows basically no political traction among the broader electorate.
Real-world examples affirm this fact. In 2010, Democrats from the Obama White House on down sought to make the heavy spending by American Crossroads, the biggest and best-funded conservative super PAC, a major issue in the midterms. It didn't work - at all.
That's not to say that super PACs don't matter in the election. As we have noted recently, without heavy ad spending by Republican super PACs, Romney would almost certainly be much further down in the polls to Obama. It's simply to say that running a campaign based on the influence super PACs appears to be a pretty fruitless endeavor.
The Post-Pew poll was conducted July 26 to 29 among a random national sample of 1,010 adults, including users of both conventional and cell phones. The overall results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Obama says Romney is running for a tax cut: Obama suggested at an event Wednesday that Romney is running for president to give wealthy people like himself a tax cut at the expense of everyone else.
Democrats have seized on a new report suggesting the poor and middle class would pay more in taxes to offset tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans want to extend.
"If Gov. Romney wants to keep his word and pay for this plan, then he'd have to cut tax breaks that middle-class families depend on to pay for your home, the home mortgage deduction; to pay for your health care, the health care deduction, to send your kids to college," the president said in Ohio.
Expect to hear plenty about the study, from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, in the coming weeks. It fits perfectly into Obama's strategy for the fall.
Republicans have pushed back, though, noting that one of the study's authors is a former Obama staffer. Another author, however, worked for a Republican president, George H.W. Bush.
Fixbits:
It's a dead heat in the suburbs.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is up with his first ad of the 2012 race - a bio ad. And a new poll from Democratic-leaning automated pollster Public Policy Polling shows Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) is neck and neck with the incumbent.
PPP also shows Democrat Richard Carmona evening the score at 38 percent apiece with Rep. Jeff Flake (R) in the Arizona Senate race.
Former Hawaii governor Linda Lingle (R) signs up for Romney's Jewish coalition, despite her need to separate herself from the national GOP in a blue-state Senate race.
The head staffers for both parties' Senate campaign committees say the races in Massachusetts and Virginia will likely decide who wins the majority.
Much-ballyhooed GOP congressional recruit Mia Love inexplicably asks a reporter to put her fundraising link on his Web site. And she trails by 18 points in a new Democratic poll.
Newly elected Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) releases an internal poll showing him leading Republican Martha McSally by 13 points.
The House GOP votes to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.
The Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century is launching a new website featuring opposition research on top GOP recruits, called GOPYoungDuds.com - a play on the GOP's Young Guns program.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to eliminate taxes on gold medals (four years too late for Michael Phelps).
Super PAC donor Foster Friess suggests he's almost done contributing for the cycle.
Must-reads:
"Who is Julian Castro and can he deliver in the spotlight?" - Domenico Montanaro, NBC News
"Virginia's Virgil Goode: Could this Man Cost Mitt Romney the Presidency?" - Elizabeth Dias, Time
"Obama campaigns in Ohio, a state drowning in political ads" - David Nakamura, Washington Post
"Thompson locked in a three-way fight for Wisconsin's GOP Senate nomination" - Karen Tumulty, Washington Post
"Romney Taps Former Paulson Aide, Fannie Mae Vet For Bain Rehab" - Ben Smith, BuzzFeed
"Adviser Draws Attention to Romney Mideast Policy" - Michael D. Shear, New York Times
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1456 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 2, 2012 Thursday 3:12 PM EST
New Obama ad: Romney would raise your taxes to lower his own;
A new ad from President Obama's campaign hits Mitt Romney two ways on taxes.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 283 words
A new ad from President Obama's campaign hits Mitt Romney two ways on taxes, suggesting that the former Massachusetts governor's tax plan is just a way to help line his own pockets.
First, "Stretch" criticizes Romney for paying a low tax rate.
"You work hard, stretch every penny, but chances are you pay a higher tax rate than him: Mitt Romney made $20 million dollars in 2010, but paid only 14 percent in taxes-probably less than you," the narrator says.
Our Factchecker disputes that, noting that Romney pays about the same or more than the average taxpayer, depending on whether you include employer contributions. But he pays less than most people in the top 20 percent of income.
Then the ad argues that the candidate's tax plan would lower rates for millionaires like Romney while raising taxes on the middle class.
"Now he has a plan that will give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year," the narrator says. "Mitt Romney's middle class tax increase: he pays less, you pay more."
A nonpartisan study released Wednesday found that Romney's plan would cut taxes for the richest 5 percent of Americans while raising taxes on the less well-off. Romney spokesman Ryan Williams dismissed the report as a "false and inaccurate" and said the Republican "would lower tax rates across the board."
Republicans are likely to label this attack by Obama as "class warfare." But despite some criticism, Obama's campaign has shown no reservations about riling up middle-class outrage or tax cuts for the rich - and using Romney as the prime example.
The ad will air in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1457 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 2, 2012 Thursday
Suburban Edition
Hundreds of ads a day hit Ohio airwaves
BYLINE: David Nakamura
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 834 words
DATELINE: MANSFIELD, OHIO
MANSFIELD, OHIO - In the air wars of the2012 presidential campaign, this industrial town of 45,000 could stake a claim as ground zero.
President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney are spending more money than ever on television advertisingin crucial electoral battlegrounds, meaning that residents of Mansfield have been subject to the most intense political ad blitz in history.
Located almost equidistant between Cleveland and Columbus, and able to watch stations in both of Ohio's top media markets, Mansfield's TV viewers were subject to more than 12,000 presidential political ads in July alone, from the campaigns and from political action committees aligned with them.
This unprecedented pace - nearly 400 ads per day, or 16 every hour - is double that of July 2008, underscoring how enormous sums of money have changed the nature of the 2012 race.
On Wednesday, Obama appeared before about 2,100 people at a campaign rally in Mansfield before heading to nearby Akron for a second event. His appearance was previewed Tuesday evening by - what else? - new attack ads from each side.
"Unless you've been hiding from your television, you might be aware there's an intense campaign going on right now," the president deadpanned at the start of his remarks.
His newest ad, titled "Worried," attacks Romney for proposing tax cuts for millionaires and new military spending that would drive up the deficit - a message that dovetailed with Obama's remarks at the rally.
"The bulk of his tax cut would go to the very top, a lot to the wealthiest 1 percent," he said.
So far, the Obama campaign has outspent Romney in Ohio, accusing him of outsourcing jobs overseas while at Bain Capitaland demanding that he release more of his tax returns. The ads seem to be helping Obama; a new Quinnipiac University-CBS News-New York Times poll shows him leading Romney50 percent to 44 percent in Ohio.
The advertising has filled the coffers of television executives - Cleveland ranks second in the nation in political ad spending, and Columbus ranks eighth - and made it virtually impossible for local residents to escape the daily infighting. The 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. block Tuesday on Cleveland's WKYC, an NBC affiliate, was saturated with seven ads: two apiece from the campaigns, one each from the Republican and Democratic national committees, and one from Restore Our Future, a Romney-aligned super PAC.
"They all kind of bleed together. They're all kind of malicious," said Aurelio Diaz, 36, of Mansfield, who works at a center for disabled people and describes himself as politically independent.
While watching the Olympics this week, Mansfield Mayor Timothy Theaker (R) said, he saw a presidential ad during almost every break. "It's an eye-opening experience . . . to see all the negativity," he said.
The ads track closely with the daily campaign, with both sides playing off news events (a new pro-Romney spot features Olympic gold medal figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi endorsing him) and trying to exploit their opponents' records and gaffes.
Romney's newest ad, titled "Dream,"says Ohio car dealerships "were forced to close" in the wake of the Obama administration's 2009 bailout of the U.S. auto industry. The spot features a man who had to shutter his GM dealership in Lyndhurst, outside Cleveland.
Obama has said the bailout saved jobs and helped General Motors and Chrysler rebound from near-bankruptcy, and that message has played well in heavily unionized areas of northeast Ohio. But here in Richland County, where Obama lost in 2008, 56 percent to 43 percent, the president could be more vulnerable.
A GM plant in Ontario, a town that borders Mansfield, closed in 2010, eliminating 1,200 jobs. The shuttered plant, surrounded by a barbed-wire fence, is in the process of being bought by a developer. But previous attempts to redevelop it have fallen through, said Gary Utt, a Democratic county commissioner who worked for GM for 26 years.
Across the street, Josh Mueck, 35, who owns a tractor equipment company that employs four people, said Romney's recent ad attacking Obamafor saying "you didn't build that" while talking about small-business ownersstruck a chord.
"That showed me what I always believed" about Obama, Mueck said. "His belief in the collective, that every idea belongs to society instead of to the person."
But Chris Elswick, 47, a school board member who supports Obama, called the ad an "outright lie" that was "edited togetherto look like he was saying something negative about small business." Elswick, who owns an appliance repair company, said he found a longer version of the president's remarks online that provided more context.
And Elswick has adopted a trick to escape some of the daily air assault.
"We live in a world of TiVo," he said. "You record your show, and when the ads come on, you zip right through them. I honestly think at this point that 95 percent of people have made up their minds already anyway."
nakamurad@washpost.com
T.W. Farnam contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 2, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1458 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
August 1, 2012 Wednesday
Late Edition - Final
New Polls Show Obama Has Edge In 3 Large States
BYLINE: By JEFF ZELENY and DALIA SUSSMAN; Marina Stefan, Marjorie Connelly and Allison Kopicki contributed reporting.
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1181 words
President Obama is struggling to persuade voters that he deserves to win re-election based on his handling of the economy, but his empathy and personal appeal give him an edge over Mitt Romney in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News polls.
The contours of a deeply competitive presidential race, with three months remaining until the election, are highlighted in the new surveys of likely voters in the three battleground states. Mr. Romney drew fairly even with Mr. Obama when voters were asked about managing the nation's financial situation, but his candidacy remains tested by concerns over his business background and his reluctance to release more of his tax returns.
The polls in the three states, all of which Mr. Obama carried in 2008, offer a window into challenges and opportunities for both candidates as August begins and they prepare for their nominating conventions and the general election fight. Most paths to victory that the campaigns are pursuing include winning at least two of the states.
While independent voters break strongly for Mr. Obama in Pennsylvania, a state that Mr. Romney has been trying to make more competitive, they are closely split in Florida and Ohio. Of the coalition that Mr. Obama built to win the White House, independent voters remain a hurdle, with a little more than half in Florida and Ohio saying they disapprove of his job performance.
But a torrent of television advertising in the states, particularly in Ohio and Florida, appears to be resonating in Mr. Obama's quest to define his Republican rival. The polls found that more voters say Mr. Romney's experience was too focused on making profits at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he led, rather than the kind of experience that would help create jobs.
A snapshot of the race, taken during a burst of summer campaigning, found that Mr. Obama holds an advantage of 6 percentage points over Mr. Romney in Florida and Ohio. The president is stronger in Pennsylvania, leading by 11 percentage points. The margin of sampling of error is plus or minus three percentage points in each state.
The New York Times, in collaboration with Quinnipiac and CBS News, is tracking the presidential contest in six states through polls over the next three months. In addition to Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, which have a combined 67 electoral votes, surveys will be taken in Colorado, Wisconsin and Virginia, which have 32 electoral votes.
Four years ago, Mr. Obama won all six states. Mr. Romney is campaigning in each state, with his strategists seeing the efforts in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the most ambitious. Those two states, which have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate over the last two decades, are considered firewalls, and an erosion of support would signal trouble for the president.
The polls found that Mr. Obama faces substantial hurdles of his own, most of them rooted in the electorate's deeply pessimistic outlook on the economy. By double-digit margins, voters in each state say his policies would hurt, rather than help, their personal financial situation if he won re-election, a worrisome sign considering the economy is ranked as voters' chief concern.
Still, more than half of voters in each state also say the administration's actions are either slowly improving the economy or will, if given more time.
''Romney does have business experience, but I wonder if his business experience would benefit the country or might harm it,'' said Peg Pagano, 72, a retiree in Holland, Pa., in a follow-up interview. ''He was in business in order to make a profit. There's nothing wrong with that, but how would that help the country? I feel Obama needs to be given another four years.''
In all three states, most women say they prefer Mr. Obama. About half of female voters in Florida back him, while his support is even stronger in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where nearly 6 in 10 women say they favor him. In Ohio, men prefer Mr. Romney, while they are more closely split in Florida and Pennsylvania.
The economy is the top concern in all three states. But voters in Ohio express more optimism about their own backyard, with 33 percent saying their economy is improving, compared with 23 percent in Florida. Ohio's unemployment rate, 7.2 percent, is the lowest of the three states and below the national rate.
A sliver of voters, 4 percent in each state, say they are undecided between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney. Only about one in 10 who have picked a candidate say they could change their minds, fewer than some polls showed at this point in previous races.
Mr. Obama has a clear advantage on personal measures, and far more voters say he cares about the needs and problems of people like them.
Mr. Romney is seen as being able to do a comparable job on the economy. More voters in Florida say his economic policies would be better for their own financial situations. Among independent voters in the state, the poll found Mr. Romney outpacing Mr. Obama by 14 percentage points when asked who would perform better on the economy.
''We've seen Romney's track record with the Olympics and with his business, and I think that's what really swayed me,'' said Chris Rench, 47, who recently left his job as an equipment operator from Piqua, Ohio. ''And I haven't seen anything in his past that has been questionable. There is nothing to make me doubt his ability to do the things he says he wants to do.''
The president drew broad support from voters in each state for a proposal to raise income taxes on people whose household income is more than $250,000. The plan received the backing of 58 percent of likely voters in Florida, 60 percent in Ohio and 62 percent in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Romney has endured criticism for declining to release more than two years of his tax returns, and at least half the voters, including about half the independent voters, in each state say presidential candidates should release several years of returns.
The state polls were conducted by telephone, both land lines and cellphones, from July 24 through July 30 among 1,177 likely voters in Florida, 1,193 likely voters in Ohio and 1,168 likely voters in Pennsylvania.
The findings cannot be compared with previous surveys because the polls are a measure of people who are likely to vote, rather than those who are simply registered. While the intensity of the race is high, it remains an open question how much the summer campaigning will influence the outcome.
Tens of millions of dollars have been invested on television advertising in the states, but most voters say they are not swayed by the commercials.
''Regardless of who gets in, neither one of them can do much about the economy, because it's bigger than what one man can do, no matter what his policies are,'' said William Basler, 69, an independent voter and a financial adviser from Fort Myers, Fla. ''I think Romney has a little more economic experience because of his business background than Obama does, but I'm voting for Obama because his policies are more in line with my thinking over all.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: President Obama campaigning on July 6 at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania, a state that Mitt Romney hopes to seize. (PHOTOGRAPH BY JIM WATSON/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE -- GETTY IMAGES)
ROBERT BRASSELL, 49, Avon, Ohio
DENNIS MCLAUGHLIN, 73, Salem, Ohio (PHOTOGRAPHS BY MICHAEL F. McELROY FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
LOGAN FITZPATRICK, 24, Riverview, Fla. (PHOTOGRAPH BY BRIAN BLANCO FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
BRENDA SOLODKNY, 58, Lancaster, Pa. (PHOTOGRAPH BY KALIM A. BHATTI FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A12) CHARTS: The candidates
The economy
Television ads (Based on telephone interviews conducted July 24-30 with 1,177 likely voters in Florida, 1,193 likely voters in Ohio and 1,168 likely voters in Pennsylvania.)
Florida: President Obama has spent more than triple what Mitt Romney has on television ads here. But Mr. Romney has ramped up his spending in the last month.
Ohio: Mr. Obama won the state in 2008, but both men face challenges here and must win over the white working class, a group that makes up more than half the electorate.
Pennsylvania: The state voted Democratic in the past five presidential elections, but Republicans hope Mr. Romney's economic message wins over independent voters.
Margin of victory in past presidential elections
Weekly spending on television ads by candidates
Top five spenders on ads, amounts shown in millions (Sources: Campaign Media Analysis Group at Kantar Media
Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections) (A12)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1459 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 1, 2012 Wednesday
New Romney Ad Hits Obama on Layoffs After Auto Bailout
BYLINE: SARAH WHEATON
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 456 words
HIGHLIGHT: Seeking to pierce one of President Obama's strongest arguments, Mitt Romney highlights an auto dealer who lost his business after the bailout. A new Obama spot also hits a traditional Republican strength: military spending.
The Obama campaign often sums up the president's accomplishments like this: "Osama bin Laden is dead. General Motors is alive."
But Mitt Romney, whose campaign has struggled to overcome his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed, is no longer ceding the bailout ground. In an ad running in Ohio to coincide with President Obama's trip there Wednesday, the Romney camp contends that "in 2009, under the Obama administration's bailout of General Motors, Ohio dealerships were forced to close."
The spot, financed in part by the Republican National Committee, features Al Zarzour of Lyndhurst, Ohio, voice shaking as he recounts receiving "a letter from General Motors. They were suspending my credit line. We had 30 some employees that were out of work."
The Obama campaign did not struggle to craft a response.
"Let's get this straight - the very person who argued for the U.S. auto industry to go bankrupt, something that would have caused more than a million jobs lost and utter economic devastation in the Midwest, is now trying to attack the president on how it was handled?" said Frank Benenati, a regional spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an e-mailed statement loaded with statistics about the industry's recovery. He added that there are "now 2,200 more Ohioans employed in dealerships than when the president took office."
How would Mr. Zarzour's dealership have survived under Mr. Romney's approach? There's no way to know.
"The course I recommended was eventually followed," Mr. Romney argued in a February 2012 op-ed. "GM entered managed bankruptcy in June 2009 and exited it a month later in July." However, he argues that "crony capitalism" related to the bailout dictated the terms of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Meanwhile, a new spot released Tuesday by the Obama campaign shows Mr. Obama being bullish on a point where Republicans are typically stronger. Titled "Worried," the ad seeks to tie Mr. Romney not only to George W. Bush's economic policies, but also to the former president's hawkishness.
The ad opens with a narrator saying, "You watched, and worried: Two wars. Tax cuts for millionaires. Debt piled up."
The spot, which is running in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio, then notes Mr. Romney's plans to cut taxes for the wealthy and "increase military spending," both of which, the campaign claims, would increase the deficit.
Likewise, the Romney campaign had no trouble drafting a response, which noted trillion-dollar deficits before adding: "President Obama's plans to raise taxes and cut the military won't create jobs or make us safer. As president, Mitt Romney will revive our economy, strengthen our military and repair the damage done to the middle class by President Obama's failed policies."
LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1460 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 1, 2012 Wednesday
Obama Heads to Ohio Battleground, Again
BYLINE: JACKIE CALMES
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 587 words
HIGHLIGHT: President Obama will make stops in north-central Ohio and plans to discuss "the choice in this election between two fundamentally different visions of how to grow the economy, create middle-class jobs and pay down the debt," according to his campaign."
MANSFIELD, Ohio - As polls in this battleground state and nationally continue to show voters split over President Obama's stewardship of the economy, Mr. Obama on Wednesday is making his ninth visit this year to Ohio to contrast his vision for the nation's future with that of his Republican rival, Mitt Romney.
In stops here in Mansfield and in Akron in north-central Ohio, an area that Mr. Obama only recently visited during a campaign bus tour, the president planned to "discuss the choice in this election between two fundamentally different visions of how to grow the economy, create middle-class jobs and pay down the debt," according to his campaign.
But Mr. Obama was flying, literally, into a controversy in Mansfield that Republicans, led by Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, a potential running mate for Mr. Romney, were only too happy to fan. According to local media, Air Force One was landing at an air base that is home to the 179th Air National Guard Wing, which would be mothballed under the Obama administration's proposed postwar reductions in Pentagon spending.
Mr. Obama is expected to repeat his call for Republicans in Congress to agree to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, on annual income of less than $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals, and to drop their insistence that the lower tax rates be extended as well for income above those thresholds. While higher taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers are central to Mr. Obama's broader deficit-reduction plan for the coming decade, Mr. Romney is calling for an additional $5 trillion in tax reductions over 10 years beyond the Bush tax cuts and has not said how he would offset the revenue loss to reduce the federal debt.
Mr. Obama has a six-percentage-point advantage over Mr. Romney in Ohio according to new polls of several battleground states for Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News. But while independent voters strongly support Mr. Obama in next-door Pennsylvania, those in Ohio and in Florida - where the president will campaign on Thursday - are split between the candidates and just over half of independents in those states say they disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance.
Even so, more voters in Ohio also said Mr. Romney's experience as a private-equity manager has been too focused on making profits for investors and not enough on creating jobs. That reflects the abundance of negative ads that the Obama campaign and a independent "super-PAC" supporting the president have run in swing states to define Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch multimillionaire who puts personal profits over jobs for average Americans.
In time for Mr. Obama's latest visit - the 25th in his presidency, according to the count of CBS White House reporter Mark Knoller, who keeps such records - his campaign is broadcasting a new ad titled "Worried" that draws parallels between Mr. Romney's agenda for increased military spending and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, and the major policies of the Bush administration in the past decade.
"You watched, and worried," a voice says in the ad, which also is running in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. "Two wars. Tax cuts for millionaires. Debt piled up. And now we face a choice." The ad then segues from those Bush-era policies to Mr. Romney's military spending and tax cut proposals.
Local media in Ohio reported on Tuesday that voters were lined up for blocks to get tickets from campaign field offices for Mr. Obama's appearances.
LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1461 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(The Caucus)
August 1, 2012 Wednesday
Obama, in Ohio, Attacks Romney Over Tax Cuts
BYLINE: JACKIE CALMES
SECTION: US; politics
LENGTH: 1016 words
HIGHLIGHT: President Obama attacked Mitt Romney's proposal to cut taxes for individuals and businesses by more than $5 trillion over the next decade.
MANSFIELD, Ohio - As polls in this battleground state and nationally continue to show voters split over President Obama's stewardship of the economy, Mr. Obama on Wednesday attempted to contrast his vision for the nation's future with that of his Republican rival Mitt Romney.
At his first stop here in north-central Ohio, in a small park against a backdrop of small businesses, Mr. Obama faced more than 2,000 supporters and offered an attack on Mr. Romney's proposal to cut taxes for individuals and businesses by more than $5 trillion over the next decade. The president would take the same message next to Akron, and is to go to Florida on Thursday.
Mr. Obama cited a newly released study from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint effort of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two Washington-based policy research organizations. It concluded that the sort of tax code that Mr. Romney has proposed "would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers."
Mr. Obama said: "Ohio, we do not need more tax cuts for folks that are already doing really well. We need tax cuts for working Americans."
Speaking loudly and emphatically, Mr. Obama singled out the study's finding that if Mr. Romney erased enough existing tax breaks to offset the revenue loss from his proposed tax cuts, so that his plan did not add to budget deficits, the changes would shift $86 billion of tax burden away from the high-income taxpayers and onto everyone else. And the tax breaks to be reduced or repealed include the deductions and credits for mortgage interest, college tuition and health insurance.
"This wasn't my staff, this wasn't something we did," Mr. Obama said. "Independent group ran the numbers."
The Romney campaign quickly dismissed the study as partisan, noting that one of its three authors had been on the staff of the president's Council of Economic Advisers. The Tax Policy Center is widely respected, however, and is used often as a resource by members of both parties in Washington.
Mr. Obama was flying, literally, into a controversy in Mansfield that Republicans, led by Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, a potential running-mate pick for Mr. Romney, aggressively fanned. Before his arrival the local media noted that Air Force One was landing at an air base that is home to the 179th Air National Guard Wing, whose C-27J aircraft were being mothballed under the administration's proposed postwar reductions in Pentagon spending.
But en route to Mansfield, Mr. Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, told reporters on Air Force One that the Pentagon would work to find a new mission for the roughly 800 guardsmen at the base - news that Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat facing re-election in Ohio, trumpeted in a news release but that the Romney campaign attacked as a politically motivated flip-flop.
Mr. Obama repeated his call for Republicans in Congress to agree to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, on annual income of less than $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals, and to drop their insistence that the lower tax rates be extended as well for income above those thresholds. Higher taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers are central to Mr. Obama's broader deficit-reduction plan for the coming decade, along with reductions over 10 years in so-called entitlement programs like Medicare.
Mr. Obama has a six-percentage-point advantage over Mr. Romney in Ohio, according to new polls of several battleground states for Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News. But while independent voters strongly support Mr. Obama in next-door Pennsylvania, those in Ohio and in Florida - where the president will campaign on Thursday - split between the candidates and just over half of independents in Ohio and Florida say they disapprove of his job performance.
Even so, more voters in Ohio also said Mr. Romney's experience as a private-equity manager had been too focused on making profit for investors and not enough on creating jobs. That reflects the abundance of negative ads that the Obama campaign and a "super PAC" supporting it have run in the swing states to define Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch multimillionaire who puts personal profits over jobs for average Americans.
In time for Mr. Obama's latest visit - his ninth in 2012 and his 25th in his presidency, according to the count of the CBS White House reporter Mark Knoller, who keeps such records - his campaign is running a new ad titled "Worried" that draws parallels between Mr. Romney's agenda for increased military spending and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations and the major policies of the Bush administration in the past decade.
"You watched, and worried," a voice says in the ad, which also is running in Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado. "Two wars. Tax cuts for millionaires. Debt piled up. And now we face a choice." The ad then segues from those Bush-era policies to Mr. Romney's military spending and tax cut proposals.
But the Romney campaign also was running a new ad, only in Ohio, that sought to turn against Mr. Obama an issue that has been a big help to the president to date - the government's successful rescue of the auto industry - and to blunt the disadvantage Mr. Romney has for having opposed that bailout.
The ad featured a man in Lyndhurst, Ohio, whose auto dealership was among those that General Motors closed as part of its downsizing. "It was like the dream that we worked for and that we worked so hard for, was gone," the man says.
Local media in Ohio reported on Tuesday that voters were lined up for blocks to get tickets from campaign field offices for Mr. Obama's appearances. Also on hand Wednesday in Mansfield was a large Romney bus in which volunteers made phone calls to potential supporters, according to Chris Maloney, a spokesman for the Romney campaign in Ohio. And about 30 protesters supporting both Mr. Romney and the former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul heaved anti-Obama signs and chanted "Shame on you, Barack Obama."
LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1462 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 1, 2012 Wednesday 10:33 PM EST
Mitt Romney makes $8.7 million ad buy;
Sarah Palin cuts radio ads and is headed to Missouri, Mitt Romney makes an $8.2 million buy, Patty Murray is dabbling in GOP primaries and the lines at Chick-fil-A are long.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 651 words
Sarah Palin cuts radio ads and is headed to Missouri, Mitt Romney makes an $8.7 million buy, Patty Murray is dabbling in GOP primaries and the lines at Chick-fil-A are long.
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your e-mail inbox every day by 5 (ish) p.m!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Priorities USA Action reserves $30 million in fall ad time
Why Ted Cruz's win isn't all good news for Senate Republicans
Palin hits back at Cheney over 'mistake' comments
Introducing the Twitter Political Index!
Rick Perry loses. Again.
Think this Congress is bad? Just wait.
Who is Ted Cruz?
Romney ad criticizes Obama's support for auto bailout
New poll shows Obama with significant lead in swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania
Ted Cruz and the GOP's changing face
FIRST ON THE FIX:
* Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has cut a radio ad for Sarah Steelman, and she told Fox News today that she's headed to Missouri, likely to campaign for the Senate candidate. She's already on TV for Steelman. If the underfunded former state treasurer wins next Tuesday's primary and goes on to face Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), it will be a big coup for Palin.
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee have made a $8.7 million ad buy in eight states, starting today. According to CNN, Ohio voters are getting attacking the bailout, Iowans see a positive spot, and in North Carolina it seems like they're getting a "you didn't build that" attack. The RNC is up with its own anti-stimulus ad.
* Briefing reporters this morning, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) fanned the flames in already heated GOP primaries coming up this month in Arizona, Wisconsin and Missouri. "The Republicans in those races have been pushing themselves even further to the right," Murray said. In Missouri and Wisconsin, Democrats have been meddling in GOP races by running ads intended to elevate the candidates perceived as the weakest for the general election.
* There are huge lines at Chick-fil-A franchises across the country for "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." While founder Dan Cathy's comments against gay marriage appear to have hurt the brand's standing, there are clearly many ardent Chick-fil-A supporters. Many Republicans are using the chicken sandwiches as a sort of emblem of conservatism (Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst stopped by on Monday; after beating him, Ted Cruz served Chick-fil-A at his victory party).
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Romney is resetting his media strategy after a week-long trip to Europe that inspired many complaints from the press corps and ended with one of his flacks shouting angrily at reporters. The Hill reports that the campaign is promising more press access and briefings.
* Former Republican Florida governor Charlie Crist is endorsing Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Neb.) and will attend an upcoming fundraiser for him, the AP reports. Crist hasn't ruled out a run for governor as a Democrat in 2014. Meanwhile, Nelson is out with his first ad, a positive biographical spot.
* The House Ethics Committee has called for a reprimand of Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.), accusing her of "breaking federal law, violating House rules and obstructing the committee's investigation." The House will vote tomorrow on the findings.
* The first rule of tracking: Don't follow the wrong person. Kurt Holland meant to follow Rep. Joe Donnelly, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Indiana. Instead he followed Marion County Judge Jose Salinas, who called the police.
* We're soliciting ideas about how Obama and Romney can use social media better. Let us know what you think.
THE FIX MIX:
A dance move worth learning.
With Aaron Blake and Sean Sullivan
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1463 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 1, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
Obama's campaign uses daytime TV ads to sell reelection bid
BYLINE: T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A section; Pg. A07
LENGTH: 918 words
Among the ads for toothpaste and dish detergent, the loyal viewers of daytime television are seeing a new pitch: Support President Obama.
"Judge Judy," in fact, has become one of the favorite venues for the Obama campaign and its allies to reach sympathetic voters. When the courtroom reality show featuring a sharp-tongued former judge airs in swing states, it often comes withads telling viewers that Republican candidate Mitt Romney uses tax havens and has shipped jobs overseas as a businessman. The show is considered an ideal vehicle for commercials pushing the president's reelection because such courtroom programs are watched by a large number of African Americans - twice the average share for television in general.
Those shows also disproportionately draw Hispanics, another voting bloc critical for Obama.
With the president and Romney virtually tied in polls, targeted TV ads are a central strategy to shore up support for Obama among voters who turned out in force in 2008.
"They're trying to get people who they can count on," said Tad Devine, a top media strategist for Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "There's not a big audience to persuade out there, so the respective sides are going to their corners."
That kind of political spending is part of a shift away from advertising during local news broadcasts, long considered a natural spot for campaign ads because they draw the most politically active audience. For over a decade, Democrats and Republicans have been moving toward niche audiences who tune into certain network shows or cable channels.
"It used to be that there was a standard political schedule, and now everybody's got their own strategy," said Stephen Hayes, the general manager of WTVR, the CBS affiliate in Richmond. "It's a lot more refined."
But Democrats are pushing out of the "news box" significantly faster. The Obama campaign and supporting interest groups have aired just one-third of their ads during local news this year, compared with half for Republicans, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, which has tracked the more than $200 million worth of broadcast-television advertising in the 2012 presidential race.
Daytime television, however, brings the Obama camp another critical set of voters: women. Three-quarters of the audience for daytime talk shows, for example, is female, according to Scarborough Research. Obama ads are running with programs such as "Dr. Oz," named for the surgeon host who sometimes trots out human body parts to show the effects of disease.
The same quest for niches explains why young viewers drawn to reruns of "The Big Bang Theory," a sitcom about two geeky physicists, will see spots on Obama's education policy or ones critical of Romney's stance on insurance coverage of contraceptives.
Daytime ads are also less expensive, which is especially appealing to Democrats.
Democrats have had a harder time than Republicans in raising the large political contributions allowed under relaxed campaign finance rules.In recent months, conservative groups have outspent the main pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, 7 to 1 on the airwaves.At the end of June, Priorities had less than $3 million in the bank, compared with more than $53 million for the two biggest conservative PACs backing Romney.
As a result, Priorities USA Action has taken a thrifty approach to television, running fewer than one in four ads during local news and 1 percent of ads during prime time.
The super PAC is also avoiding some of the more expensive media markets, including Philadelphia, Washington and Miami. In Florida, for example, it is buying time only in Tampa and Orlando, home to vast numbers of swing voters along the Interstate 4 corridor. "We put a very high premium on the efficiency of the dollars that we spend, because we know we're going to be outspent," said Bill Burton, the co-founder of Priorities USA Action."We micro-target based on demographic and geographic needs."
Obama's campaign is spending more than the super PAC, advertising in nine of Florida's 10 markets.Obama officials declined to comment, and Romney's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Priorities has focused much of its money on ads that run in the early morning and daytime and attack Romney for his record at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded. It spent millions of dollars in ads on that subject weeks before the Obama campaign joined the fray.
In one of the commercials sponsored by the super PAC, a man wearing work clothes narrates from an empty factory yard as newspaper headlines announce layoffs."With Romney and Bain Capital, the objective was to make money," the worker says as a freight train rumbles past in the background. "He promised us the same things he promised the United States. He'll give you the same things he gave us - nothing. He'll take it all."
The super PAC's recent spots, featuring emotional testimonials from workers who say they were affected by Bain's actions, seem to be talking to unemployed people and shift workers. The hope is that they, too, will be reached through daytime television.
Sometimes, campaigns will shell out for prime-time spots costing upward of $2,000 for a single airing. Republicans prefer dramas and police shows, Kantar's data show, and Democrats tend to go for lighter fare. Obama's campaign has spent $1 million on ads during ABC's "The Bachelorette" and Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance?"
farnamt@washpost.com
Laura Vozzella contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1464 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
August 1, 2012 Wednesday 8:12 PM EST
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 105 words
Ad watch
President Obama has a new ad, "Worried," that suggests former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will govern like George W. Bush.
"You watched and worried," the narrator says. "Two wars. Tax cuts for millionaires. Debt piled up. And now we face a choice. Mitt Romney's plan: A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires. Increase military spending. Adding trillions to the deficit. Or President Obama's plan: A balanced approach. Four trillion in deficit reduction. Millionaires pay a little more."
The ad is airing in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio.
- Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1465 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
August 1, 2012 Wednesday 6:55 PM EST
Four Pinocchios: Giuliani's anti-Obama remarks in Florida;
We check the former New York City mayor's claims that the president destroyed Las Vegas and told Joe the Plumber he'd raise taxes even if it meant less government revenue.
BYLINE: Josh Hicks
LENGTH: 1739 words
"Remember Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber asked [then-Sen. Barack Obama]: 'Would you raise taxes even if it didn't bring any more money to the government? Like the capital gains tax. If you raise the capital gains tax - the government did this once 20 years ago - if you raise the capital gains tax, you actually make less money for the government, because people stop doing investments, or they'll do investments overseas.' He [Obama] said, 'Well I would do it anyway because it's only fair.' "
- Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani during a pro-Mitt Romney speech at the Florida GOP headquarters in Tampa, July 26, 2012
"I don't think the president of the United States has any idea how much damage he does when he does these ad hominem attacks on business. I mean, he basically destroyed Las Vegas by saying, 'shouldn't have junkets to Las Vegas.' He put a lot of poor people out of work. All of a sudden, conventions are down 20, 30, 40, 50 percent."
- Giuliani during private meeting with reporters after pro-Romney speech, July 26, 2012
Rudy Giuliani made these comments while stumping for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney at Florida's Republican headquarters in Tampa last week. The former New York City mayor focused largely on the economy, telling the crowd that they could help spark an economic recovery by electing Romney.
Giuliani described President Obama as "anti-business" and "anti-profit," specifically when it comes to taxes and regulations. He harped on the president for suggesting business owners don't build successful companies without help from others, such as the government, and he mentioned an old exchange between then-candidate Obama and "Joe the Plumber," an aspiring business owner the president met on the 2008 campaign trail.
During a private meeting with reporters, Giuliani brought up another example of Obama's supposed hostility toward business, including the president's 2009 and 2010 remarks about Las Vegas.
Let's examine the exchange with Joe the Plumber and find out what's happened with Las Vegas in recent years to determine whether Giuliani's comments were accurate.
The Facts
Joe the Plumber
Joe the Plumber is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, an Ohio resident who asked then-Sen. Obama during a 2008 campaign stop to explain his tax policy and how it would affect him as an aspiring small-business owner. The Tampa Bay Times has provided a full transcript of the exchange, which is also posted on You Tube.
Wurzelbacher, who is running this year as the GOP nominee to represent Ohio's 9th Congressional District, said he was getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000 to $280,000 a year, and he asked, "Your new tax plan's gonna tax me more, isn't it?"
To make a long story short, Obama answered in the affirmative, saying he would raise rates for incomes above $250,000, from a 36 percent marginal rate to 39.6 percent, though he also introduced small-business tax cuts. (As president, Obama has not been able to win congressional approval to boost tax rates on the wealthy, though his health-care law did include some higher taxes for this income group.)
Still, Giuliani mentioned the capital gains tax in particular. This indeed represents one type of tax that the president has proposed increasing, but the former mayor seems to have plucked this out of thin air. Neither Obama nor Wurzelbacher talked about the capital gains tax during their discussion.
Wurzelbacher also didn't say anything about tax hikes ultimately reducing government revenue. This notion relates to the theory, expressed most famously by economist Arthur Laffer, that increasing taxes rates increasingly becomes unproductive for raising further revenue, and that lower rates can actually result in more revenue.
Giuliani would have been safe saying Obama promised to raise Joe the Plumber's taxes. But he went too far in suggesting that the president doesn't care whether tax hikes reduce revenue, as he did by claiming that the president said, "Well, I would do it anyway."
To the best of our knowledge, Obama has never said he subscribes to the theory that tax hikes lead to lower revenue, but that's beside the point. This topic was not part of the discussion with Wurzelbacher.
Regarding the issue of tax fairness, Giuliani is closer to the mark, but he's still off. Candidate Obama said one of the goals behind his income-tax plan was to provide a break for individuals and small businesses making less than $250,000 per year. Here's an excerpt from his exchange with Joe the Plumber:
"The only thing that changes, is I'm gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well - even though they've been working hard and I appreciate that - I just want to make sure they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear, it's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success too."
This shows that Obama did indeed talk about tax fairness with Wurzelbacher. But Giuliani suggested that the president was talking about fairness at the expense of greater revenue, which is not the case.
'He basically destroyed Las Vegas'
This claim stems from a set of remarks Obama made in 2009 and 2010.
The president held a town hall meeting in Elkhart, Ind., less than one month after his inauguration to answer questions about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus. During that meeting, he assured audience members that the legislation was necessary and that he would not allow bankers and executives to use stimulus money for junkets or bonuses.
Here's what Obama said:
"You are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you pay taxpayers back. You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime. There's got to be some accountability and some responsibility, and that's something that I intend to impose as president of the United States."
These comments drew the ire of Las Vegas boosters, who said the remarks undermined the Sin City's economy.
Obama threw himself in more hot water with the Vegas folks during a February 2010 town hall in Nashua, N.H. During that meeting, he deflected criticism for having raised the deficit by talking about using a priorities-of-government approach to control government spending. Here's what he said:
"Responsible families don't do their budgets the way the federal government does. Right? When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. It's time your government did the same."
The president tried to make amends with Las Vegas a few days later, when he told the city's chamber of commerce, "Let me set the record straight: I love Las Vegas."
Did Obama's comments hurt the city? Well, they couldn't have helped. But tourism and the convention industry are bound to suffer when the economy struggles, so it's improbable that Las Vegas wouldn't have experienced trouble during the downturn without the president's remarks.
Giuliani mentioned conventions, so we consulted data from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, which shows that the industry didn't suffer as much as the former mayor suggested. We ran the numbers using 2008 as the base level, since that's the year before Obama took office and made his initial remarks about the Sin City.
It ends up that the number of conventions - just the events themselves - dropped 14 percent in 2009, then fell further to 18 percent below the base in 2010, and rebounded back to about 14 percent below the base in 2011. In this regard, the numbers never dipped to the low end of Giuliani's claim, 20 percent.
As for convention attendance, the worst years were 2009 and 2010, when the numbers fell about 24 percent below the 2008 base. This supports the low end of Giuliani's claim, but it doesn't come close to satisfying the higher end of "30, 40, 50 percent." Attendance improved to 17 percent below the base in 2011, so things seems to be looking up in Vegas.
The lag in convention attendance and event numbers actually started during President George W. Bush's last year in office, so the issue pre-dates Obama. In 2008, attendance was down about 6 percent, and the number of events had fallen by 5 percent.
We found only anecdotal evidence of a larger drop in business due to Obama's remarks. For instance, former Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman told the Las Vegas Sun in September 2010 that organizers for the International Association of Financial Crimes Investigators complained to him that the president's comments caused their group to fall about 40 percent short on their attendance goal for a conference.
Anecdotal evidence is compelling, but it doesn't compare with data for an industry as a whole. Overall, the Las Vegas convention sector is a lot like the overall economy: The problems continue to this day, but they pre-dated the Obama administration, and the trend is positive at the moment.
Pinocchio Test
Giuliani mischaracterized the 2008 exchange between Obama and Joe the Plumber. The topic of capital gains taxes never came up during that discussion, nor did the issue of whether higher taxes ultimately lead to lower revenue. Obama did talk about tax fairness with Wurzelbacher, but, again, not in the context of tax hikes reducing revenue.
As for whether Obama destroyed Las Vegas, it's impossible to know how much the president's comments affected business for the city. But we do know that the impact to the convention industry - even if the troubles were all Obama's fault - couldn't have been as great as Giuliani made it out to be - the data prove otherwise.
The former New York mayor earns Four Pinocchios for his comments in Tampa.
Four Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1466 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 1, 2012 Wednesday 3:41 PM EST
Romney ad criticizes Obama's support for auto bailout;
Spot negatively portrays its impact on car dealerships.
BYLINE: Sean Sullivan
LENGTH: 268 words
Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee are taking to the airwaves with a new TV ad that criticizes President Obama's support for the auto bailout by negatively portraying its impact on car dealerships.
"In 2009, under the Obama administration's bailout of General Motors, Ohio dealerships were forced to close," the narrator of the 30-second ad says.
The commercial goes on to feature an Ohio car salesman explaining that his business was negatively impacted by the move.
"I received a letter from General Motors. They were suspending my credit line," the man says. "We had thirty-some employees that were out of work."
The ad's release coincides with Obama's planned trip to Ohio on Wednesday, where he will be campaigning in Akron and Mansfield.
In a release, the Romney campaign did not specify the states in which the ad is running.
"This ad in Ohio is a new low for the Romney campaign, and instead of trying to deceive Ohioans they should get their facts straight because there are now 2,200 more Ohioans employed in dealerships than when the President took office," responded Obama campaign spokesman Frank Benenati.
Both Obama and Romney are banking that their respective postures on the auto bailout will help them in rust belt states like Ohio heavy with large numbers of working-class voters and auto industry employees and former employees.
Even downballot candidates are taking up the issue. Last month, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) released television ads highlighting the positive impact of the auto bailout on their home state economies.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1467 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
August 1, 2012 Wednesday 2:54 PM EST
Mitt Romney warms up in new ad;
New ad shows candidate's human side.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 239 words
As he puts a rocky trip abroad behind him, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) is out with a new minute-long ad that sweeps over the case for his presidency with a human touch.
In it Romney goes over his resume - Bain, the Olympics, Massachusetts - but in a personal, down-to-earth way.
Romney speaks directly to the camera, as Obama did in a recent campaign ad. Like Obama, Romney is reintroducing himself to voters with a positive message in a sea of negative attacks.
"I know what it's like to hire people and to wonder whether you're going to be able to make ends meet down the road," the candidate says from the front wheel of an SUV. "From those experiences, I went off to have the chance at running the Olympics in Salt Lake City in 2002."
While the Olympics "not only a scandal ... but a financial crisis," he says, "the real experience was in Massachusetts," where he worked with Democrats to fix "a budget that was badly out of balance."
He concludes, ""I want to use those experiences to help Americans have a better future."
The only jab at Obama is in the closing voiceover, which says "Believe in the America you built" - a subtle nod to the Republican campaign's ongoing campaign against the phrase "you didn't build that." (Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith responded that the Republican's record "is one of outsourcing, job losses, and massive debt.")
The ad is being paid for by the Republican National Committee.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1468 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 1, 2012 Wednesday
Met 2 Edition
Obama's campaign uses daytime TV ads to sell reelection bid
BYLINE: T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A07
LENGTH: 914 words
Among the ads for toothpaste and dish detergent, the loyal viewers of daytime television are seeing a new pitch: Support President Obama.
"Judge Judy," in fact, has become one of the favorite venues for the Obama campaign and its allies to reach sympathetic voters. When the courtroom reality show featuring a sharp-tongued former judge airs in swing states, it often comes withads telling viewers that Republican candidate Mitt Romney uses tax havens and has shipped jobs overseas as a businessman.
The show is considered an ideal vehicle for commercials pushing the president's reelection because such courtroom programs are watched by a large number of African Americans - twice the average share for television in general.
Those shows also disproportionately draw Hispanics, another voting bloc critical for Obama.
With the president and Romney virtually tied in polls, targeted TV ads are a central strategy to shore up support for Obama among voters who turned out in force in 2008.
"They're trying to get people who they can count on," said Tad Devine, a top media strategist for Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "There's not a big audience to persuade out there, so the respective sides are going to their corners."
That kind of political spending is part of a shift away from advertising during local news broadcasts, long considered a natural spot for campaign ads because they draw the most politically active audience. For over a decade, Democrats and Republicans have been moving toward niche audiences who tune into certain network shows or cable channels.
"It used to be that there was a standard political schedule, and now everybody's got their own strategy," said Stephen Hayes, the general manager of WTVR, the CBS affiliate in Richmond. "It's a lot more refined."
But Democrats are pushing out of the "news box" significantly faster. The Obama campaign and supporting interest groups have aired just one-third of their ads during local news this year, compared with half for Republicans, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, which has tracked the more than $200 million worth of broadcast-television advertising in the 2012 presidential race.
Daytime television, however, brings the Obama camp another critical set of voters: women. Three-quarters of the audience for daytime talk shows, for example, is female, according to Scarborough Research. Obama ads are running with programs such as "Dr. Oz," named for the surgeon host who sometimes trots out human body parts to show the effects of disease.
The same quest for niches explains why young viewers drawn to reruns of "The Big Bang Theory," a sitcom about two geeky physicists, will see spots on Obama's education policy or ones critical of Romney's stance on insurance coverage of contraceptives.
Daytime ads are also less expensive, which is especially appealing to Democrats.
Democrats have had a harder time than Republicans in raising the large political contributions allowed under relaxed campaign finance rules.In recent months, conservative groups have outspent the main pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, 7 to 1 on the airwaves.At the end of June, Priorities had less than $3 million in the bank, compared with more than $53 million for the two biggest conservative PACs backing Romney.
As a result, Priorities USA Action has taken a thrifty approach to television, running fewer than one in four ads during local news and 1 percent of ads during prime time.
The super PAC is also avoiding some of the more expensive media markets, including Philadelphia, Washington and Miami. In Florida, for example, it is buying time only in Tampa and Orlando, home to vast numbers of swing voters along the Interstate 4 corridor. "We put a very high premium on the efficiency of the dollars that we spend, because we know we're going to be outspent," said Bill Burton, the co-founder of Priorities USA Action."We micro-target based on demographic and geographic needs."
Obama's campaign is spending more than the super PAC, advertising in nine of Florida's 10 markets.Obama officials declined to comment, and Romney's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Priorities has focused much of its money on ads that run in the early morning and daytime and attack Romney for his record at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded. It spent millions of dollars in ads on that subject weeks before the Obama campaign joined the fray.
In one of the commercials sponsored by the super PAC, a man wearing work clothes narrates from an empty factory yard as newspaper headlines announce layoffs.
"With Romney and Bain Capital, the objective was to make money," the worker says as a freight train rumbles past in the background. "He promised us the same things he promised the United States. He'll give you the same things he gave us - nothing. He'll take it all."
The super PAC's recent spots, featuring emotional testimonials from workers who say they were affected by Bain's actions, seem to be talking to unemployed people and shift workers. The hope is that they, too, will be reached through daytime television.
Sometimes, campaigns will shell out for prime-time spots costing upward of $2,000 for a single airing. Republicans prefer dramas and police shows, Kantar's data show, and Democrats tend to go for lighter fare. Obama's campaign has spent $1 million on ads during ABC's "The Bachelorette" and Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance?"
farnamt@washpost.com
Laura Vozzella contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1469 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
August 1, 2012 Wednesday
Suburban Edition
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 98 words
Ad watch
President Obama has a new ad, "Worried," that suggests former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will govern like George W. Bush.
"You watched and worried," the narrator says. "Two wars. Tax cuts for millionaires. Debt piled up. And now we face a choice. Mitt Romney's plan: A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires. Increase military spending. Adding trillions to the deficit. Or President Obama's plan: A balanced approach. Four trillion in deficit reduction. Millionaires pay a little more."
The ad is airing in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio.
- Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: August 1, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1470 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
July 31, 2012 Tuesday
Late Edition - Final
Dullest Campaign Ever
BYLINE: By DAVID BROOKS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 21
LENGTH: 801 words
A few weeks ago, Peggy Noonan wrote a column in The Wall Street Journal that perfectly captures my attitude toward this presidential campaign: It's incredibly consequential and incredibly boring all at the same time.
Since then, I've come up with a number of reasons for why it is so dull. First, intellectual stagnation. This race is the latest iteration of the same debate we've been having since 1964. Mitt Romney is calling President Obama a big-government liberal who wants to crush business. Obama is calling Romney a corporate tool who wants to take away grandma's health care.
American politics went through tremendous changes between 1900 and 1936, and then again between 1940 and 1976. But our big government/small government debate is back where it was a generation ago. Candidates don't even have to rehearse the arguments anymore; they just find the gaffes that will help them pin their opponent to the standard bogyman cliches.
Second, lack of any hint of intellectual innovation. Candidates used to start their campaigns by giving serious policy addresses at universities and think tanks to lay out their distinct philosophies. Bill Clinton was a New Democrat. George W. Bush was a Compassionate Conservative.
But the ideological climate has ossified. Candidates know that they'd be punished for saying something unexpected -- by the rich, elderly donors and by the hyperorthodox talk-show hosts. Instead of saying something new, now they just try to boost turnout within their own demographic niches and suppress turnout in the other guy's niches.
Third, increased focus on the uninformed. Four years ago, Barack Obama gave a sophisticated major speech on race. Mitt Romney did one on religion. This year, the candidates do not feel compelled to give major speeches. The prevailing view is that anybody who would pay attention to such a speech is already committed to a candidate. It's more efficient to focus on the undecided voters, who don't really follow politics or the news.
Fourth, lack of serious policy proposals. Has there ever been a campaign with so few major plans on the table? President Obama's proposals are small and medium-size retreads, while Mitt Romney has run the closest thing to a policy-free race as any candidate in my lifetime. Republicans spend their days fleshing out proposals, which Romney decides not to champion.
Fifth, negative passion. Both parties are driven more by hatred than by love. Both sides feel it would be a disaster for the country if the other side had power during the next four years. Neither side is propelled by much positive enthusiasm for their own side.
Many Democratic politicians think Obama looks down on them as a bunch of lowlife hacks. As Noonan wrote in that column, he sometimes seems to regard politics as a weary duty on his path to greatness. The Republican coolness toward Romney is such that he's having trouble recruiting people to work on the campaign.
Sixth, no enactment strategy. To avert catastrophe, the next president will have to rally bipartisan majorities around a budget deal and many other things. That will require personal and relationship skills neither has demonstrated. The polarizing, negative tactics the candidates use to get elected will make it impossible to succeed after one of them wins.
Seventh, ad budget myopia. Both campaigns fervently believe that more spending leads to more votes. They also believe that if they can carpet bomb swing voters with enough negative ads, then eventually the sheer weight of the barrage will produce movement in their direction. There's little evidence that these prejudices are true. But the campaigns are like World War I generals. If something isn't working, the answer must be to try more of it.
Eighth, technology is making campaigns dumber. BlackBerrys and iPhones mean that campaigns can respond to their opponents minute by minute and hour by hour. The campaigns get lost in tit-for-tat minutiae that nobody outside the bubble cares about. Meanwhile, use of the Internet means that Web videos overshadow candidate speeches and appearances. Video replaces verbal. Tactics eclipse vision.
Finally, dishonesty numbs. A few years ago, newspapers and nonprofits set up fact-checking squads, rating campaign statements with Pinocchios and such. The hope was that if nonpartisan outfits exposed campaign deception, the campaigns would be too ashamed to lie so much.
This hope was naive. As John Dickerson of Slate has said, the campaigns want the Pinocchios. They want to show how tough they are. But the result is a credibility vacuum. It's impossible to take ads seriously. They are the jackhammer noise in the background of life.
This is the paradox. As campaigns get more sophisticated, everything begins to look more homogenized, less effective and indescribably soporific.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: July 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1471 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
July 31, 2012 Tuesday
FINAL EDITION
The underlying duel of 2012 // Seniors vs. Millennials;
The young overwhelmingly back Obama, while those over 65 favor Romney. This divide -- and vote -- could impact U.S. policies for years to come.
BYLINE: Susan Page, USA TODAY
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 1943 words
At age 74, Jack Ireton-Hewitt is volunteering in his first campaign, walking door to door and manning an information booth at a county fair to help elect Republican Mitt Romney president. But the retired manufacturing executive has failed to persuade two targets close to home: his granddaughters, ages 19 and 21.
The first-time voters back President Obama.
That much-debated gender gap? The generation gap is wider. In a national USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, most 65-and-older seniors support Romney while young adults under 30 back Obama by almost 2-1. The 18-percentage-point difference in their presidential choices is one of the electorate's biggest demographic divides, and it helps define campaign strategies for both sides.
The enthusiasm of the Millennial Generation for Obama, who is now 50, fueled his election victory four years ago. Though still backing him, younger voters have lost some of their ardor while seniors have become significantly more engaged than in 2008 on behalf of the 65-year-old Romney -- and they are much more likely to vote. At stake in this divide is not only the presidency but also the country's policy direction -- shaping the debate on Social Security and Medicare spending, the need to invest in education and the priority placed on environment.
Ireton-Hewitt, for one, finds his granddaughters' point of view exasperating.
"Their big thing is Obama is going to lower the interest rates on their college loans," he says, noting that he worked his way through college and graduate school without borrowing a dime. The Chambersburg resident appreciates Romney's business background and his record in turning around the troubled Salt Lake City Winter Olympics in 2002. "That's the kind of guy we need as president today," he says.
At age 18, Alaysha Claiborne is working in her second campaign after volunteering for Obama before she was old enough to vote in 2008. She arrives at the campaign's storefront in downtown York in a bright yellow T-shirt and blue jeans to work a Saturday afternoon shift at the re-election phone bank.
There are political differences in her family, too. Her grandmother is "pretty conservative," says Claiborne, who will enter Temple University in Philadelphia this fall. Her generation has its own distinct perspective, she says. "Young people are more liberal and more accepting," and Obama's biracial background and international upbringing appeals to them. "His personal story is very diverse, and my generation, we pride ourselves on our diversity."
In some ways, the clashing generations reflect the changing face of America, especially when it comes to race and ethnicity. Among the seniors surveyed, 16% are Hispanic or racial minorities. Among those under 30, that proportion nearly triples, to 45%. Younger Americans overwhelmingly assess the nation's growing diversity as a good thing rather than a bad thing, by 56%-32%.
Seniors are inclined to see it as a bad thing for the country, by 44%-39%.
"I hate to use the word racially motivated; I don't think that's it," says William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution who studies generational differences. "It's a fear of change and an unfamiliar change in a bad economy." That's one reason the new health care law is viewed with such suspicion by seniors, he says.
"Young people are interested in the future," he says. "They're not afraid of change."
Frey has created an index that measures what he dubs the "cultural generation gap," ranking states by the gulf between white seniors 65 and older and non-white children under 18, a mismatch that could spark conflicts over public policies and the allocation of resources. Three of the top six states on his index are among the dozen battlegrounds likely to decide the presidential election: Nevada, New Mexico and Florida. Swing states Colorado and North Carolina also are high on the list.
Do more or less?
Views of the role of government differ, too.
Two-thirds of seniors say the government is trying to do too much that would be better left to businesses and individuals; about one in four say the government is doing too little to solve the country's problems. Among those younger than 30, the divide is much closer, 52%-47%, between those who say the government is doing too much or too little.
On no issue is the gap greater than on the question of same-sex marriage. Almost six in 10 Millennials say the next president should work to make gay marriages legal nationwide. Fewer than one in four seniors agree.
Asked to assess the importance of a dozen issues facing the next president, the youngest voters and the oldest ones reflect different priorities and self-interests:
For those 18 to 29 years old, many of whom are preparing for or launching careers in a tough economic climate, the top-ranked issue is creating good jobs. Among those 65 and older, many of whom are retired or approaching retirement, that concern drops to sixth.
For those 65 and older, ensuring the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare -- programs on which many of them rely -- ranks second. Protecting those entitlement programs falls to seventh among those under 30.
Seniors are more concerned about the way politics in Washington works, or doesn't work. By double digits, they put a higher priority on reducing corruption in the federal government (their top issue) and on overcoming political gridlock.
Millennials, who may be starting families or still be in school themselves, put a higher priority on improving public schools and making college education affordable and available. As a group, they are more concerned about environmental issues such as global warming.
The findings are based on a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken July 19-22 of 1,030 adults, including 334 respondents who are 65 and older (margin of error +/-7 percentage points) and 128 respondents who are 18 to 29 (margin of error +/-11). The younger group largely mirrors the so-called Millennial Generation, of those born from 1981 to 1993. They are 18 to 31.
A major generation gap in presidential preference also was found in the daily Gallup poll, aggregated over three weeks, which has larger samples and lower margins of error. In the period from July 2-22, registered voters under 30 supported Obama by 14 points; those 65 and older backed Romney by 10 points.
The two group's differences in priorities are likely to sharpen the looming debate over how to reduce the federal deficit, including the possibility of raising taxes -- an issue on which seniors express stronger and more negative views than young adults. This year's lame-duck session of Congress will consider the ax that is poised to slash spending if the legislators can't reach the budget deal that has eluded them.
The groups also shape this year's campaign appeals. Obama has tried to cut into Romney's lead among seniors by warning that his opponent wants to convert the popular Medicare program into a voucher system. (Romney supports giving seniors the option of the current system or a new "premium support" plan to purchase private coverage.) The Romney camp is trying to win over voters, including young people, who backed Obama four years ago but are disappointed by the nation's continued economic travails. "It's OK to make a change," a new ad from the Republican National Committee says.
Still, the thrusts of both campaigns are aimed at drawing undecided voters and generating enthusiasm among core supporters. That's why the president talks so much about student loans and job-training programs while Romney spotlights concerns about the size of government and the deficit.
On a Saturday morning, several dozen GOP activists show up at Lancaster County Republican headquarters for the launch of Romney's local victory campaign. Asked why they're for the former Massachusetts governor, most cite taxes (too high), spending (out of control) and the health care law they deride as "ObamaCare."
"I don't want socialized medicine," says Beverly Rubin, 62, who was making calls in the phone bank set up in the basement. A paper sign taped to the door calls it the "GOP Victory Center." It's the first time Rubin has volunteered in a campaign since she was 14 and the candidate was Barry Goldwater.
"It's the fact that Barack Obama is president," she says. "I want to see a change. I think the country is going down completely the wrong path."
Upstairs, Immo Sulyok stands next to a life-size cardboard cutout of Romney in the back of the room. GOP county chairman Scott Boyd has offered volunteers who sign up on that day the chance to have their photo taken with the cutout and signed by the candidate -- by auto-pen, he notes in the interest of full disclosure.
"To help the less fortunate, that's important, but this is not a sustainable model" for the U.S. government, says the white-haired Sulyok, who declines to give his age. "It feels good to go to a money tree, but that's not realistic. We don't have that far to go to be like Greece, Spain."
Mary Jo Sottek, 67, and her husband, Tom, 68, consider the question of why young people back Obama by such a wide margin.
"We believe in the Constitution," she says. "But younger people today. "
"With younger voters, it's the president's charisma," he says, shaking his head with apparent distaste.
'Everybody loves him'
At the Obama headquarters in York, 25 miles down Arsenal Road, the volunteers tend to be younger and are more casually dressed. Asked why they support the president, they cite his support of women's rights and gay rights, his global perspective and his relative youth.
"For me, it's the women's rights issue and issues like education which are most important to me," says Hannah Miller, 21, a senior at Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pa. "I really want to have a say in what the future is going to be."
"The biggest thing for me -- it's not so political, it's more of an interest in his leadership," says Hesham Abdelhamed, 23, a junior studying international relations at York College. He supports tighter government regulations on the banks and Obama's approach on foreign policy. "Everybody loves him" around the world, he says of the president.
Why is there a generational divide?
"The older generation may be more skeptical, more careful about their decisions," he suggests.
Irene Langley, 66, sports a small circular Obama campaign emblem on her cheek, courtesy of a fellow volunteer who specializes in face-painting. Langley has a theory for why many voters her age are inclined to back Romney. "The country is changing so fast, and I just think people may be afraid of change," the lifelong Democrat says. "The older people cling to their older ideas, and they won't let them go."
Dizzying developments in technology are part of that, she says. There's this: In the USA TODAY poll, three of four seniors were reached on land lines. Eight of 10 Millennials were called on cellphones.
The age divide gives the Romney camp one big advantage. Those 65 and older are the electorate's most reliable voters; young people are the least. In the survey, three of four seniors say they have given "a lot of thought" to the election, historically a sign they will show up at the polls. Four in 10 of the Millennials say the same.
"Our largest polling places in the county are our three senior homes," says Diane Moore, 43, the GOP's Election Day coordinator for Lancaster County. "In 2008, our college campuses came out very strong for Obama. We hadn't seen that before but I would think that support is not going to be as strong this time."
The Republican volunteers laugh when asked if they're certain to vote in November.
"100%," Mary Jo Sottek says.
"I'll be there, or I'll be dead," Sulyok says.
LOAD-DATE: July 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: COVER STORY
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1472 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
USA TODAY
July 31, 2012 Tuesday
First EDITION
Dems draft support for same-sex marriage
BYLINE: Catalina Camia
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 5A
LENGTH: 507 words
The Democratic Party took an initial step toward supporting same-sex marriage for the first time in its party platform.
The Washington Blade first reported that the Democrats' platform-drafting panel decided to include language favoring gay marriage. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told the Blade there was a "unanimous decision" by the platform-drafting committee at its meeting this weekend to include the gay-marriage plank.
If approved by the full platform committee in August, the proposed plank would mark the first time a major-party platform supported gay marriage. The party would then have to ratify the language at the Sept. 3-6 convention, where President Obama will be formally nominated.
"Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement.
Gold medalists endorse Romney in ad
Some of America's past Olympic gold medalists are featured in a new ad touting Mitt Romney's accomplishments.
Kristi Yamaguchi, Derek Parra and Jimmy Shea star in the new pro-Romney commercial paid for by Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting the Republican presidential candidate.
Romney's rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics from financial disaster is a major part of his campaign narrative. He frequently cites his work as head of the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee as evidence he can turn around the economy.
"Mitt Romney brought a huge sense of hope," Yamaguchi, a 1992 Olympic champion in figure skating, says in the ad. Parra, a speedskater and the first Mexican-American to win a Winter Olympics gold medal, says, "Mitt allowed athletes like myself to be able to realize our dreams." Shea won gold in skeleton in 2002.
The ad does not use copyrighted material or images of the Olympic rings, so the spot does not violate an International Olympic Committee rule forbidding the use of the rings or footage from the Games for political purposes.
Americans entrenched on gun control
Americans remain closely divided on the issue of gun control vs. gun rights, more than a week after 12 people died in the July 20 massacre at a Colorado movie theater.
A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows 47% of Americans say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 46% say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns.
The results came as James Holmes was charged Monday with 24 counts of first-degree murder for his alleged role in the shooting in Aurora that left 12 people dead and 58 wounded.
President Obama and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney agree that now is not the time to consider new gun laws.
Pew says the findings in the survey of 1,010 adults, which was conducted July 26-29, aren't much different from findings in a similar poll taken in April. At that time, 45% of Americans said controlling gun ownership was important vs. 49% who emphasized protecting gun owners' rights.
LOAD-DATE: July 31, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER
Copyright 2012 Gannett Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
1473 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
July 31, 2012 Tuesday 11:37 PM EST
Mitt Romney's foreign trip didn't go well. Does it matter?;
The Republican presidential nominee's European trip turned out badly. Does it matter at all to his chances this fall?
BYLINE: Chris Cillizza;Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 1134 words
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney later today wraps up his foreign tour, a trip that drew a series of negative headlines and has left many Republicans wondering what exactly the GOP presidential nominee was hoping to accomplish.
The assessments of the trip, which saw Romney visit London, Israel and Poland over the past week, ranged from scathing to resigned among the Republican professional political class.
"I find this entire trip borderline lunacy," said one senior Republican strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly. "Why on earth is he seeking to improve his foreign policy cred when there will not be a single vote cast on that subject?"
Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican operative, was more measured, but acknowledged that the trip was something short of a unqualified success.
"Romney abroad is the same as Romney at home," said Rogers. "His performance is uneven at times, but overall, pretty good." Added Rogers: "Let's face it, Romney can't win, but Obama can lose."
Another veteran Republican political consultant reached for a golf metaphor when asked to explain Romney's performance in Europe - and whether it will hurt his campaign domestically.
"He's like the guy who is a competent-but-not-gifted athlete who learns to play golf," said the GOP source. "He works really hard at it, and most of the time he's perfectly competent, if not stellar. But once each round he is going to shank one and break a window on a house lining the golf course."
Those aren't the sort of impressions Romney wanted to create when he left for Europe at this time last week. The goal of the trip seemed obvious - a chance for Romney to prove to doubters that he was more than up to serving as the face of America on the world stage.
Those close to the Romney campaign reject even the idea that the foreign trip was a net negative for them. Yes, the candidate made a few errors, they acknowledge, but they were minor when compared to the overall message - praise from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and an endorsement from Poland's Lech Walesa - that the average American voter received from Romney's travels over the last week. As evidence, they point to a series of front pages in swing states like the Palm Beach Post, the Dayton Daily News and the Las Vegas Review Journal - all of which played the Israel visit very favorably.
While no one in the political orbits of either Romney or President Obama thinks that this election will be decided by foreign policy, there is a sense that a challenger with little experience in that area has to show that he can meet a minimum level of credibility abroad.
Call it the commander-in-chief test, which, according to the latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, Romney had yet to pass; in that survey 45 percent of respondents said Obama would make the better commander in chief, while just 35 percent said Romney would be superior on that front.
It's hard to imagine that Romney did himself any favors in answering lingering questions about his foreign policy acumen during this trip.
On the other hand, there is an argument to be made that nothing - literally, nothing - other than the economy at home matters to undecided voters. And that goes double for foreign policy, which is a bottom-of-mind issue (is that a thing?) for most voters.
In a late May Washington Post-ABC News poll, 1 - yes, one - percent of people said that foreign policy was the most important issue of the 2012 campaign. One!
The problem for Romney coming off of this trip is even many of his staunchest defenders within the party seem to have fallen back on a "he's not great but he doesn't need to be great" argument.
While that argument may wind up working - no president since World War II has been reelected with anything close to the 8+ percent unemployment rate Obama is likely to face - it's not one that will inspire huge amounts of confidence in the GOP as summer turns to fall.
Cruz vs. Dewhurst today: All eyes will be on Texas tonight, when Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and former state solicitor general Ted Cruz face off for what is effectively a ticket to the Senate.
Cruz is the favorite in the GOP primary runoff despite finishing second in the first round of voting.
Whoever wins, the general election appears to be little more than a formality. Democrats thought they had a strong candidate, but their recruit, retired general Ricardo Sanchez, quickly fizzled.
If Cruz wins, the GOP has a new young conservative Latino star on its hands and the tea party has it's biggest win of the election cycle.
If Dewhurst somehow pulls it out, it will be a triumph of the political establishment and money; the wealthy Dewhurst holds a powerful post in Texas and had plenty of the advantages that come with it, including the backing of Gov. Rick Perry.
For more on the key House runoffs, see the Hotline's preview.
Bill Clinton hits popularity high: Former president Bill Clinton is more popular than he's been since his first year as president, according to a new Gallup poll.
Clinton, who it was announced Monday will formally nominate Obama at the Democratic National Convention, is viewed favorably by 66 percent of Americans. The last time he hit that number was shortly after he assumed office in 1993.
The former president saw his post-presidency approval rise to 63 percent in 2007, but it took a hit as his wife ran for president in 2008, sinking to 50 percent. Since then, though, it has taken off again, making him one of the most popular politicians in the country - and a valuable surrogate for Obama.
Fixbits:
Tim Pawlenty says Obama is "all froth and no beer."
Rep. Shelley Berkley's (D-Nev.) Senate campaign is up with a country-themed radio ad playing up Sen. Dean Heller's (R-Nev.) two votes for Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget.
Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren will speak right before Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.
Hillary Clinton speaks out against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who has accused Clinton aide Huma Abedin of possible connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) announces a surprise retirement, but his seat should be safe for the GOP.
Must-reads:
"In Israel, Romney wows crowds but puzzles with grasp of Palestinian relationship" - Scott Wilson, Washington Post
"Gridlock may not be all bad for Obama" - Steven T. Dennis, Roll Call
"Obama's purported link to early American slave is latest twist in family tree" - Krissah Thompson, Washington Post
"Congressional leaders near budget deal to keep government running" - Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post
"Tea party retools as network of field operatives, keeps pushing GOP rightward" - Douglas A. Blackmon, Washington Post
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1474 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
July 31, 2012 Tuesday 11:25 PM EST
Obama ad links Romney and Bush;
New ad suggests we could go back to Bush administration.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 783 words
Obama invokes W, Geoff Davis is resigning, someone told Harry Reid something about Mitt Romney and Steve LaTourette is tired of the partisanship.
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your e-mail inbox every day by 5 (ish) p.m!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
Mitt Romney's inner circle: Who are these guys?
Ted Cruz, conservative hybrid
Romney abroad: Live by gaffes, die by gaffes
The case for Rob Portman to be vice president
Julian Castro will keynote Democratic National Convention
Obama's gay marriage support fails to sway Americans
Mitt Romney warms up in new ad
Two-thirds see Aurora shooting as isolated incident
Mitt Romney's foreign trip didn't go well. Does it matter?
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* President Obama is out with a new ad, "Worried," that suggests former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will govern like George W. Bush. "You watched and worried," the narrator says. "Two wars. Tax cuts for millionaires. Debt piled up. And now we face a choice. Mitt Romney's plan. A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires. Increase military spending. Adding trillions to the deficit. Or President Obama's plan? A balanced approach. Four trillion in deficit reduction. Millionaires pay a little more." The ad is airing in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Florida.
* Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) has resigned. He was already planning to retire. "Recently, a family health issue has developed that will demand significantly more of my time to assist," he said in a statement. "As a result, I cannot continue to effectively fulfill my obligations to both my office and my family. Family must and will come first."
* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.) claims a Bain investor told him that Romney didn't pay taxes for ten years. "Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," the Democrat admitted in a Huffington Post interview. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns." Romney's campaign has denied that the candidate ever paid no taxes.
* Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and his wife, author Helen Thorpe, are separating after ten years of marriage. In a statement, the couple said that there was no affair, they did seek counseling, and that they still plan to spend vacations and holidays together. They have a ten-year-old son.
* Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), one of the few moderates left in the House, explained today why he's retiring. He said "the atmosphere" in the House "no longer encourages the finding of common ground" - in particular, he was "horribly disappointed" by the wrangling among Republicans over a highway funding bill.
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Romney's campaign is planning a high-profile, four-day bus tour through Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio starting Aug. 10 - possibly to introduce the party's vice presidential candidate.
* Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is out with a new ad defending his conservative bona fides against primary challenger Wil Cardon. "You know me, I'm a conservative," he says, listing his many endorsements. "An Arizona conservative." After the ad came out, the NRA joined in backing Flake. FEC reports suggests that Flake could run out of money trying to compete with the self-funding Cardon.
* Some colleagues may have turned on her. But Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has plenty of supporters after accusing a State Department staffer of spying for the Muslim Brotherhood - she still raised $1 million in July. Minnesotans "know my time is genuinely focused on keeping America strong and growing."
* Obama ponied up and donated $5,000 to his own campaign today. "[W]e have always believed that there's nothing we can't do when we all pitch in," he said in an email. "That includes me." The campaign released a web video of Obama making the donation online.
* Obama and Romney both released new mobile apps today. Romney's app will let you know when he picks a running mate. Obama's is an organizing tool that helps volunteers donate, find events and distribute news. But its biggest component is a new canvassing tool that allows supporters to access local voter data and start going door-to-door without ever visiting a campaign office.
* Poor Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.). A day after he came out with what is quite possibly the worst campaign ad of 2012, the Club for Growth is dinging him for another ad - this one defending earmarks funding armored vehicles. Club spokesman Barney Keller said the group was "disappointed" that Akin would "defend a policy that directly leads to more government and wasteful spending."
THE FIX MIX:
Some goats are nicer than others.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1475 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fact Checker
July 31, 2012 Tuesday 1:36 PM EST
An Obama quote taken out of context, yet again;
The Romney campaign earns 4 Pinocchios for claiming Obama said his economic plan "worked."
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
LENGTH: 804 words
"Barack Obama on the Economy"
- headline in a Romney campaign ad, followed by President Obama speaking:
"We tried our plan - and it worked. That's the difference. That's the choice in this election. That's why I'm running for a second term."
Another day, another out-of-context quote?
Readers should be very wary of television ads showing a snippet of the opposing candidate speaking. There is often too much context missing.
Both campaigns have crossed the foul line in this regard (remember Mitt Romney supposedly saying he liked to fire people?) but this is the second week in a row we have had to examine how the Romney campaign is using one of the president's quotes. Let's take a look.
The Facts
There is a dead giveaway here that something is missing: Why would Obama be bragging that his plan "worked" when the unemployment rate is still above 8 percent? That doesn't sound like smart politics.
The reason for Obama's statement becomes clear when the preceding sentences are read. (The section used in the ad is in bold type.) Remember that he is speaking to fellow Democrats at a fundraising event.
I'm running because I believe you can't reduce the deficit - which is a serious problem, we've got to deal with it - but we can't reduce it without asking folks like me who have been incredibly blessed to give up the tax cuts that we've been getting for a decade. I'll cut out government spending that's not working, that we can't afford, but I'm also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well. Just like we've tried their plan, we tried our plan - and it worked. That's the difference. That's the choice in this election. That's why I'm running for a second term.
In other words, in an inelegant way, Obama is trying to compare Democratic philosophy (raise taxes on the wealthy - "our plan") with Republican philosophy (don't raise any taxes - "their plan"). He also appears to be trying to hitch his presidency to the economic success of the Clinton years. He can rightly argue that he's never had a chance to do what Bill Clinton did - raise taxes on the wealthy - because Republicans have blocked his efforts.
But as we have repeatedly said, it is rather silly to think the economy can be divided into such neat presidential-term chunks.
Some would argue that some of the seeds for the disastrous economy at the end of George W. Bush's term were planted during Clinton's presidency (breaking down the walls between commercial and investment banks, for instance). Clinton also benefited from some luck - a surge in stock prices for technology companies in the mid-1990s. The bubble later burst, but not before significantly boosting federal revenue (and eliminating the deficit) with taxes on capital gains.
Thus, as an argument, Obama is really pushing the envelope in suggesting that the boom times of the Clinton era are directly attributable to Clinton's tax increases. (We have already dinged Obama for suggesting in this passage that tax rates will be the same as under Clinton, since that's not right.)
Still . . . the Romney ad starts off by claiming that Obama is talking about today's economy. And then the ad is filled with comments from ordinary Americans about how they are suffering today.
Romney senior advisor Eric Fehrnstrom strongly defends the use of the clip. "Obama can't have it both ways on this. He's either running on the Clinton record, which is completely superior to his own," he said. "Or Obama's running on his record, which is a failure and why his campaign is now in the awkward position of saying the president was not referring to his own plans when he made the 'it worked' statement."
The Pinocchio Test
It may well be disingenuous of Obama to wrap his policies in the mantle of Bill Clinton, but he was talking to a roomful of Democrats. We also make some allowances for awkward language uttered off the cuff, especially if it appears to be a one-time statement. (The Romney campaign did not supply any other examples of Obama claiming his economic plan worked.)
In any case, the Romney campaign clearly ripped these words out of context, leaving them untethered from their original meaning - in order to score political points in a highly misleading way. Obama was not talking about today's economy, but about different philosophies of taxation.
Four Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads
Read our biggest Pinocchios
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1476 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
July 30, 2012 Monday
Late Edition - Final
Campaigns Take Different Roads Against Olympics
BYLINE: By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; THE CAUCUS; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 617 words
WASHINGTON -- Can politics compete with gymnastics?
The week ahead may be one of the most challenging for the message mavens of the presidential campaigns as they try to break through Olympic fever.
That fever may not subside until Friday, when the monthly jobs report may once again remind Americans of the sober economic realities they face.
But until then, President Obama and Mitt Romney are trying different approaches as they seek the attention of a voting public that is more focused on the sport of sports than the sport of politics. Here is a look at the week ahead for the candidates, as well as what effect the jobs report could have:
OBAMA The president's team is trying the traditional approach: television commercials and visits to swing states.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Mr. Obama will make campaign stops in Ohio, Florida and Virginia. The message he delivers will most likely be the same as it has been: a combination of attacks on Mr. Romney and a defense of his tenure in the White House.
His television advertisements will echo those messages. The campaign is running a commercial that features Mr. Obama talking about America being a country of ''workers and doers and dreamers.'' In the ad, the president says he believes in ''fighting for the middle class, because if they are prospering, all of us will prosper.''
The campaign is also running an ad accusing Mr. Romney of opposing insurance coverage for contraception, wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade and supporting a law that would have banned abortion, even in cases of rape and incest (a charge that Mr. Romney's campaign heatedly denies).
''We need to attack our problems, not a woman's choice,'' a woman says at the end of the commercial.
ROMNEY Mr. Romney will take a different approach, having chosen to spend the first half of the week in Europe on a trip meeting foreign leaders. That leaves the domestic conversation to Mr. Romney's surrogates and his campaign commercials.
On Sunday, Mr. Romney delivered remarks in Israel, pledging to respect that country's right to take pre-emptive action against Iran. On Tuesday, he will speak in Poland after two days of discussions there.
In the meantime, Mr. Romney has run an ad accusing the president of disrespecting small businesses. (Mr. Obama and his allies say his remarks are being taken out of context.) In the commercial, the owner of a small business asks Mr. Obama, ''Why are you demonizing us?''
Mr. Romney's campaign is trying to push that message even while he is abroad. The campaign's surrogates have held dozens of ''We did build it!'' events around the country to try to highlight the president's remarks.
JOBS REPORT Perhaps nothing either candidate does will compete with the London Olympics quite as effectively as the jobs report that will be released at 8:30 a.m. on Friday.
The monthly data will show how many jobs were added or lost in July and whether the unemployment rate has changed from 8.2 percent. Most economists do not expect a major change in either direction.
If that expectation proves true, Mr. Romney -- who will return from Europe by the end of the week -- is certain to seize on the weak job growth numbers as further evidence that Mr. Obama's policies are not working. The president's schedule says only that he has meetings at the White House that day, leaving him plenty of opportunity to respond.
The Olympics will continue until Aug. 12, and many American voters may decide they will not tune in to the presidential campaign until the Games are over.
And then? Watch out. Mr. Romney will probably pick his vice-presidential nominee soon after. And the national party conventions -- another type of spectator sport -- will start at the end of August.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1477 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
July 30, 2012 Monday 10:23 PM EST
Romney's less-than-Olympic narrative;
A major part of his 2008 campaign, Mitt Romney's success in guiding the 2002 Olympics hasn't really been a major issue in 2012. That could change now with a pro-Romney super PAC launching a $7 million ad effort focused on the 2002 Salt Lake Games.
BYLINE: Aaron Blake
LENGTH: 626 words
Mitt Romney is still waiting for his gold medal from the American public.
If you look across Romney's public and private sector record, his time as head of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City stands out as what should be his greatest and most politically advantageous achievement.
Unlike his tenure at Bain Capital and as governor of Massachusetts, there's very little Democrats can say that will undermine or pick apart Romney's Olympics record. It's also a high profile example of Romney's business acumen that actually has a real-world connection to most peoples's lives.
And, as luck would have it, the Summer Olympics in London is being held just a few months before the U.S. presidential election - a terrific opportunity for Romney to take a victory lap, right?
Maybe.
The Olympics been something of an afterthought for the Romney campaign so far, and the games may actually be working against him to at point, thanks in large part to his suggestion last week that London wasn't ready for the crush of crowds and security challenges they pose.
If Romney's trip to London was supposed to highlight his own stewardship of the (Winter) Olympic Games, it appears to have failed. And apart from that, we haven't seen much messaging on the issue from his supporters.
That changes today, though, with the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future launching a $7.2 million ad campaign featuring former Olympian Kristi Yamaguchi singing Romney's praises.
"Mitt Romney brought a huge sense of hope," Yamaguchi says in an ad featuring other Olympians and talking about the Salt Lake City turnaround.
But to this point, the Olympics portion of Romney's record seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
In 2008, Olympian Dan Jansen was Romney's big name on stage in Iowa (his , if you will) as the state voted in its all-important caucuses. This time, the Olympics seem to be more of a bullet point on his resume than a silver bullet to victory.
Part of that is the passage of time. The 2008 election was six years after Salt Lake; it's now been a full decade. But part of it is also emphasis.
Democrats have even gotten some traction in undercutting what put Romney on the political map. Romney's suggestion that London might not be ready for the games is now part of a narrative that says his foreign trip has been a gaffe-filled mess; and the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action even had some fun, releasing a web ad linking the countries of the opening ceremonies to Romney's overseas bank accounts and pointing out that the 2002 U.S. Olympic uniforms were manufactured in Burma.
The ad was eventually pulled when Olympics officials ruled that the campaigns couldn't use their footage in the campaign. (And really, that's probably another victory for Democrats, who have far less use for triumphant footage of the 2002 Games than does Romney.)
"On something that people thought would be an unimpeachable positive for him, he didn't take any time at all to tell his side of it," said Priorities USA founder Bill Burton. "The fact is that his connection with this Olympics is his horse on the horse ballet competition."
Polling right now shows the Olympics is not yet a major reason that people are supporting Romney. A Bloomberg poll in June showed just 8 percent of people said it was his most important qualification - far less than those who said the same about his time as governor (41 percent) or at Bain Capital (34 percent).
None of this is to say that the Olympics story isn't an asset for Romney or that it won't wind up being a big part of his campaign. That remains to be seen.
But what had been the candidate's major calling card in the 2008 campaign and a significant part of his resume for his 2012 run has been neutralized to some degree.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1478 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washington Post Blogs
The Fix
July 30, 2012 Monday 9:42 PM EST
Scott Brown on Elizabeth Warren's criticisms: 'Blah, blah, blah, blah';
Scott Brown says blah, Sarah Palin says Steelman is a mama grizzly, Mitt Romney says you should talk privately about settlements and Dick Cheney says he's fishing.
BYLINE: Rachel Weiner
LENGTH: 672 words
Scott Brown says blah, Sarah Palin says Steelman is a mama grizzly, Mitt Romney says you should talk privately about settlements and Dick Cheney says he's fishing.
Make sure to sign up to get "Afternoon Fix" in your e-mail inbox every day by 5 (ish) p.m!
EARLIER ON THE FIX:
The worst ad of the 2012 campaign (so far)?
Democrats add gay marriage to party platform
Republicans killing Chick-fil-A with kindness?
Romney's less-than-Olympic narrative
What garbage can tell us about the direction of the economy - in 1 chart
Why Barack Obama needs Bill Clinton
What a Ted Cruz victory would mean
John McCain responds to Cheney with torture jab
WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED:
* The debates between Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren (D) will not be civil, the National Journal concludes. Asked by a reporter about some of Warren's criticisms, Brown cut in, "Blah, blah, blah, blah."
* Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney expanded a little on his Middle East peace plans with CNN today, saying that the issue of settlements "is something that should be discussed in private by the American president and our allies." Obama publicly called for a settlement freeze in 2009. Romney caused a stir earlier for suggesting that "culture" helps explain why Israel is more successful than the Palestinian territories.
* Former Polish president Lech Walesa essentially endorsed Romney for president today. "I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too," the Nobel Peace prize winner said in Gdansk. "Governor Romney, get your success, be successful!" The Solidarity union distanced itself from its former leader's remarks, saying it stands with the AFL-CIO against Romney.
* Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tells BuzzFeed he likes the new media world. "To the extent that there isn't media domination like there was in the days NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, particularly since most people on my side of the aisle feel they had a pretty obvious bias ... those days are over," he said. "I kind of like this new environment. I think it's much more competitive, much more balanced."
WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T MISS:
* Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin stars in a new ad for Missouri Senate candidate Sarah Steelman, calling her "an economist who defends our tax dollars like a mama grizzly defends her cubs." Steelman faces Rep. Todd Akin and businessman John Brunner in an Aug. 7 primary to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D).
* Following in the footsteps of former president George W. Bush, former vice president Dick Cheney is skipping the Republican National Convention. He'll be fishing in Canada, he tells ABC News: "I've done a lot of conventions over the years, but this is a special trip I've been planning on for a long time."
* Former House speaker Newt Gingrich is "personally ... very comfortable not giving a speech" at the Republican convention, he told reporters today, "because frankly, there is a whole new generation of candidates out there and people who represent the future."
* Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) missed a court appearance today where he was scheduled to testify in a business dispute. The former business partners suing Buchanan say he's trying to push the testimony off until after the election; Buchanan says his lawyer is having major health problems.
* Normally softspoken Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a "treacherous, miserable liar" and a "first-class rat" in a Huffington Post interview. Also, "incompetent." Bill Magwood earned Reid's ire for pushing for a nuclear waste disposal site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The senator says Magwood had assured him otherwise. Magwood has been accused of instigating a coup in the NRC.
THE FIX MIX:
An 8-bit Olympics.
LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1479 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
July 30, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
Obama's approval rating among business owners drops
BYLINE: Catherine Ho
SECTION: ; Pg. A17
LENGTH: 367 words
Days after presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney used an excerpt from President Obama's speech to attack the president's support for American entrepreneurship, a Gallup poll released last week indicates that business owners are increasingly unhappy with Obama. Business owners, whose job approval rating of the president dropped from 41 percent in the first quarter of 2012 to 35 percent in the second quarter, were the only employment group whose support for the president dipped significantly during the past three months. The poll found that 59 percent of business owners disapprove of Obama - the highest disapproval rating among all occupations, which also include professional workers, manufacturing workers and transportation workers.
The poll was taken before Obama's July 13 speech, in which he said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." In context, the comment alluded to the fact that successful people have benefited from the help of teachers and government infrastructure. But the Romney campaign quickly jumped to frame Obama's words as anti-business, and issued a television ad featuring a New Hampshire metal plant owner saying the president was demonizing business owners for building their own companies.
The Obama campaign fought back, releasing its own television ad saying Romney's attack was out of context. "Those ads taking my words about small business out of context, they're flat out wrong," Obama said in the ad. "Of course Americans build their own business. Every day, hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them as America always has. By investing in education, training, roads and bridges, research and technology."
Obama also told reporters at the home of retired Costco chief executive Jim Sinegal in New Orleans that, "The one thing I do have no patience for is this argument that somehow what I'm criticizing is success," according to Bloomberg Businessweek. "That's an argument you hear from the other side: Oh, he wants to punish success. I want to promote success."
hoc@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1480 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
July 30, 2012 Monday 8:12 PM EST
The Fix's week in politics The Fix's week in politics
SECTION: A section; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 379 words
QUOTE OF THE WEEK "I hear there's a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we're ready. He wants to know whether we're ready. Are we ready? Are we ready? Yes, we are!"
-London Mayor Boris Johnson,at a pre-Olympics ceremony on Thursday, hitting back at Romney's critiques.
BY THE NUMBERS
43The percentage of voters who see President Obama negatively, in a new NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll. Nearly 40 percent see Mitt Romney negatively. The numbers are unusually bad for July, indicating that the election will be not about whom voters like more, but whom they dislike less.
1/3The proportion of Americans who say they keep a gun in their home. Although public opinion has shifted against gun control in the past few decades, the number of Americans who own guns has actually declined dramatically since the 1970s.
3The number of positive ads that ran last weekend, according to a CMAG analysis. All three were in Spanish. Both campaigns have turned relentlessly negative, though that negativity is likely to be scaled back a bit for the Olympics. With the context-free attacks, more and more viewers are just tuning both candidates out.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO DEMOCRATS
Mitt Romney stumbled overseas. The GOP presidential candidate's overseas trip, which was generally regarded as a great opportunity for a charm offensive, devolved into a series of stumbles. Romney suggested London wasn't ready for the Olympics, he disclosed a meeting with British intelligence officials that was supposed to be kept secret, and he got generally bad reviews from the news media. Not a great foreign policy debut.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO REPUBLICANS
For the first time in a long time, President Obama was on the defensive for a few days. The Obama campaign released its first ad of the 2012 campaign that featured the candidate speaking to the camera, and he spent that time defending himself against his "You didn't build that" quote, which Republicans contend was dismissive of small-business owners and a game-changer in the election. Obama's team says the attack isn't working, but the ad suggests otherwise.
- Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1481 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
July 30, 2012 Monday
Suburban Edition
The Fix's week in politics The Fix's week in politics
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02
LENGTH: 357 words
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"I hear there's a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we're ready. He wants to know whether we're ready. Are we ready? Are we ready? Yes, we are!"
-London Mayor Boris Johnson, at a pre-Olympics ceremony on Thursday, hitting back at Romney's critiques.
BY THE NUMBERS
43The percentage of voters who see President Obama negatively, in a new NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll. Nearly 40 percent see Mitt Romney negatively. The numbers are unusually bad for July, indicating that the election will be not about whom voters like more, but whom they dislike less.
1/3The proportion of Americans who say they keep a gun in their home. Although public opinion has shifted against gun control in the past few decades, the number of Americans who own guns has actually declined dramatically since the 1970s.
3The number of positive ads that ran last weekend, according to a CMAG analysis. All three were in Spanish. Both campaigns have turned relentlessly negative, though that negativity is likely to be scaled back a bit for the Olympics. With the context-free attacks, more and more viewers are just tuning both candidates out.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO DEMOCRATS
Mitt Romney stumbled overseas. The GOP presidential candidate's overseas trip, which was generally regarded as a great opportunity for a charm offensive, devolved into a series of stumbles. Romney suggested London wasn't ready for the Olympics, he disclosed a meeting with British intelligence officials that was supposed to be kept secret, and he got generally bad reviews from the news media. Not a great foreign policy debut.
BEST THING THATHAPPENED TO REPUBLICANS
For the first time in a long time, President Obama was on the defensive for a few days. The Obama campaign released its first ad of the 2012 campaign that featured the candidate speaking to the camera, and he spent that time defending himself against his "You didn't build that" quote, which Republicans contend was dismissive of small-business owners and a game-changer in the election. Obama's team says the attack isn't working, but the ad suggests otherwise.
- Aaron Blake and Rachel Weiner
LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1482 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
July 30, 2012 Monday
Every Edition
Obama's approval rating among business owners drops
BYLINE: Catherine Ho
SECTION: Pg. A17
LENGTH: 360 words
Days after presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney used an excerpt from President Obama's speech to attack the president's support for American entrepreneurship, a Gallup poll released last week indicates that business owners are increasingly unhappy with Obama.
Business owners, whose job approval rating of the president dropped from 41 percent in the first quarter of 2012 to 35 percent in the second quarter, were the only employment group whose support for the president dipped significantly during the past three months. The poll found that 59 percent of business owners disapprove of Obama - the highest disapproval rating among all occupations, which also include professional workers, manufacturing workers and transportation workers.
The poll was taken before Obama'sJuly 13 speech, in which he said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
In context, the comment alluded to the fact that successful people have benefited from the help of teachers and government infrastructure. But the Romney campaign quickly jumped to frame Obama's words as anti-business, andissued a television ad featuring a New Hampshire metal plant owner saying the president was demonizing business owners for building their own companies.
The Obama campaign fought back, releasing its own television ad saying Romney's attack was out of context.
"Those ads taking my words about small business out of context, they're flat out wrong," Obama said in the ad. "Of course Americans build their own business. Every day, hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them as America always has. By investing in education, training, roads and bridges, research and technology."
Obama also told reporters at the home of retired Costco chief executive Jim Sinegal in New Orleans that, "The one thing I do have no patience for is this argument that somehow what I'm criticizing is success," according to Bloomberg Businessweek. "That's an argument you hear from the other side: Oh, he wants to punish success. I want to promote success."
hoc@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1483 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
July 29, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Political Fortunetelling
BYLINE: By FRANK BRUNI
SECTION: Section SR; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 3
LENGTH: 1108 words
TALK about putting the cart ahead of the donkey. Last week Public Policy Polling actually sized up voters' feelings about possible Democratic candidates for... the 2016 presidential race. That's right: 2016. The 2012 contest still has two conventions, one vice-presidential selection, four debates and a river delta's worth of mudslinging to go, and already the soothsayers are moving on. Either we Americans are an admirably future-oriented people, or we're really, really bored.
The polling firm surveyed voters in Iowa, site of those wild and woolly caucuses, and found that they preferred Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden by a 42-point margin. You'll be hard pressed to believe this, but on the Republican side, which the firm also assessed, things were messier, with Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee so close they might as well be tucked into the same sweater vest.
Those findings came out Monday. On Tuesday news reports noted that Jeb Bush would be giving a speech this fall in Iowa -- which can mean only one thing! -- and that the Colorado governor, John Hickenlooper, a popular Democrat, had made plans for a summer trip to New Hampshire, verdant cradle of so many a presidential dream. Any day now, I expect Intrade odds for a Bush-Hickenlooper general-election contest, along with a raft of commentary on the implications of a matchup even more syllabically skewed than Bush-Dukakis. Can the longer clump of letters win?
And if we extrapolate just a bit from current trends and add a soupcon of imagination, can't we see even further into the future? Let's give it a try.
In the 2020 Republican primary, there are brief surges each by Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and the comedian Dennis Miller. For three weeks, Sarah Palin sends coy signals of a possible candidacy; those weeks happen to coincide with the debut of her Wasilla lounge act, ''Rock & Rogue,'' and the rollout of a signature eyewear collection at LensCrafters nationwide.
Michele Bachmann attempts a comeback, enabled by a continued erosion of campaign finance regulations. Corporations can now formally sponsor like-minded candidates, and a fast-food chain known for its evangelical bent backs her, leading to bumper stickers and T-shirts that say: ''Bachmann 2020, Brought to You by Chick-fil-A.''
But the primary ultimately comes down to dueling dauphins. It's George P. Bush (son of Jeb) versus Tagg Romney (son of Mitt), whose catchy campaign slogan, ''Tagg: You're It!'' gives him an early lead. That advantage is erased when, on a trip to Brazil meant to showcase his foreign-policy bona fides, he alienates the entire country with a profession of admiration for what he mistakenly assumes to be its national anthem, ''The Girl From Ipanema.'' And so Romney, brought to you by the Marriott International Inc., narrowly loses to Bush, brought to you by Koch Industries.
He faces a Democratic incumbent, Andrew Cuomo, brought to you by the Food Network, which has grown at this point to eight channels of programming, three devoted to the ultra-processed, ''semi-homemade'' cooking of Cuomo's significant other, Sandra Lee.
Cuomo promises that if semi-enthusiastic voters give him a second term, he and Lee will at last tie the knot. He also assures voters that he will never again let her choose the menu for a state dinner or come anywhere near the food pyramid, which, under her influence, has begun to resemble something more like a food trapezoid. He prevails.
The 2024 Democratic primary is an inter-dynastic echo of the 2020 Republican one, pitting Beau Biden (son of Joe) against Chelsea Clinton (lineage well known). Solidifying the Democratic Party's lucrative connection to Hollywood, Clinton says that she plans to make George Clooney her secretary of state. Biden one-ups her -- and seals his primary win -- by pledging the two-for-one appointment of Brangelina to that post, on the correct theory that the couple's expansive brood of adopted children alone can provide him his margin of victory at the polls.
The Republican field is utter madness, even if you don't factor in Palin's latest faux flirtation with a candidacy. It coincides with the debut of her new reality show, ''Sarah at Sixty: A Tundra of Fun.''
George P. Bush winds up getting the nod again. The Biden vs. Bush general-election face-off is the most expensive ever, with a total of $50 billion in spending by the campaigns, the parties, various ''super PACs'' and three unidentified men from Beijing hoisting steamer trunks of cash off the baggage carousel at J.F.K. When Bush points out that he has added more than 250,000 jobs to the economy through his hiring of ad makers, opposition researchers, telemarketers and assemblers of George P. Bush action figurines, voters gratefully elect him.
By 2036, campaigns have turned so negative and shallow that candidates don't even bother with policies; they just exchange dismissive emoticons on a new, wordless social media platform. The Republican incumbent, Andrew Rove, flings eye rolls, yawns and -- in a homage to the president his father helped elect -- an occasional smirk.
Rove's Democratic opponent, Malia Obama, favors hopey-changey faces and expressions of grit.
The only two traditional news periodicals still in operation publish frequent laments about the tyranny of name recognition, nepotism and family wealth in American government, noting that Rove's commerce secretary is Craig Romney; his education secretary is Ben Quayle; his labor secretary is Ivanka Trump; and his secretary of defense is Meghan McCain. The potent sway of such journalism is reflected in Obama's choice of a running mate: Kristin Gore.
Presidential debates no longer exist, replaced by a jingoistic televised competition, ''The Patriot Game,'' that tests candidates' love of country and belief in American exceptionalism. The judges Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber favor Obama's a cappella version of ''My Country, 'Tis of Thee'' to Rove's hip-hop interpretation of ''This Land Is Your Land.''
Obama and Rove perform equally well in the ''America Is Better Than Europe Because'' segment, each getting 100 percent of the ''true or false'' questions correct. But in the ''American Superlatives'' category, Rove stumbles. While he correctly names the United States as the fattest country on earth and as the one with the most handguns per household, he denies it its rightful recognition as the major democracy with, at this point, the lowest voter turnout.
Regardless, the White House at long last goes to a third-party candidate, who benefits from both Republican and Democratic bloodlines. In January 2037, the oath of office is taken by Patrick Arnold Shriver Schwarzenegger.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: DRAWINGS (DRAWINGS BY BEN WISEMAN)
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1484 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
July 29, 2012 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
Obama's Team Taking Gamble Going Negative
BYLINE: By JEFF ZELENY
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; POLITICAL MEMO; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1155 words
CHICAGO -- As President Obama pushes Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, a television commercial from his campaign bluntly says, ''Makes you wonder if some years he's paid any taxes at all.'' In another spot, Mr. Obama's campaign stops short of calling the Republican a tax cheat, but stirs suspicion by declaring, ''Romney's used every trick in the book.''
With 100 days remaining before Election Day, there is an air of apprehension around the Obama campaign headquarters here. Yet there are few regrets about the tone of the race, only a conviction that the circumstances -- a frail economy, intense Republican opposition and a well-financed negative campaign from Mr. Romney and his allies -- left Mr. Obama no option but to fight back even if it sullies his image as a candidate of hope and change.
''Is it a different kind of race than 2008? Of course,'' said David Axelrod, a senior campaign strategist. ''If we were passive in the face of this onslaught we are facing, our folks would be unhappy. There are few on our side who are counseling us to sit idly by.''
Mr. Romney and his allies are giving as good as they get, lacerating Mr. Obama as hapless in promoting job creation, feckless with allies like Israel and determined to expand government until the United States resembles Sweden.
As the campaigns prepare for the next phase of the race, the two sides are taking stock of what they have achieved in their first sustained engagement, a relentlessly negative effort over the last two months to define the other. The exchanges have been so fierce that hardly a positive ad has been broadcast in July.
But both the opportunities and the risks in the definition wars are greater for Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney is less well known to the public, giving Democrats a chance to shape perceptions of him just as more voters are starting to tune in to the race.
The president's prospects for re-election now rest in part on one of the biggest gambles of his career: that the benefits of trying to eviscerate Mr. Romney outweigh the costs to his own image and reputation.
With a political climate ripe for unseating an incumbent, the president's campaign team signaled long ago that it had no intention of trying to replicate the 2008 race, and made it clear last year that if Mr. Romney won the Republican nomination, they would rush to aggressively define him before turning to a forward-looking message in the fall.
Mr. Obama, whose competitive and confident streaks seem to have been rekindled by the challenge from Mr. Romney, has shown no inclination to hold back in trying to portray his rival as a secretive Bush-era throwback whose wealth puts him out of touch with the middle class.
The president not only approves of his television ads, as federal election law requires him to say in each commercial, he also screens many of them in advance, either on his iPad or during a regular Sunday evening meeting with political advisers at the White House.
Fearful of the tone becoming too shrill, he took the rare step of speaking directly to the camera in a new ad that elevates the conversation, a hint of his approach when the campaign moves beyond summer.
''Sometimes politics can seem very small,'' Mr. Obama said, sounding almost apologetic. ''But the choice you face, it couldn't be bigger.''
His aides wondered in particular whether a recent spot showing Mr. Romney singing ''America the Beautiful,'' while headlines about outsourcing and overseas bank accounts flashed, was too negative. The president and some of his strategists were unsure, aides said, but a focus group of voters found it to be fair. They still tested the ad again before showing it.
The ratio of negative ads, which are defined as those in which a campaign mentions its rival by name, tells the story. Since April, after Mr. Romney became the presumptive nominee, Mr. Obama broadcast negative commercials 118,775 times compared with 56,128 times for positive commercials.
In the same time period, Mr. Romney ran negative spots 51,973 times and positive spots 11,921, according to an analysis from Kantar Media, which tracks political advertising. This does not include the Republican ''super PAC'' ads that are almost entirely attacks on the president.
''President Obama was keeping a more balanced mix, but by the end of June he turned off the positive spigot,'' said Elizabeth Wilner, who studies advertising for the group.
Polls suggest that voters might be starting to view Mr. Obama less favorably even as the race remains tight. And while it is hard to know whether the shift is related to the tone of his campaign, his advisers are acutely mindful that one of Mr. Obama's key attributes, that voters generally like him, must be preserved to win over the undecided voters who will determine the race.
But if Mr. Obama prevails, it will almost certainly be because his team executed a plan to try to win the race in the summer to make Mr. Romney unacceptable to voters by the fall. It is a page from the 2004 playbook of President George W. Bush, whose campaign spent the same period relentlessly defining Senator John Kerry as unreliable.
Matthew Dowd, a former Republican strategist who was a top adviser on the Bush re-election campaign, refers to it as ''poisoning the water table.'' The parallels between 2004 and 2012 are striking, he said, with the Obama campaign putting its stamp on Mr. Romney before he introduces himself to voters.
''President Obama and his campaign have made the determination that the only way they can win this race is to create a negative impression of Mitt Romney,'' said Mr. Dowd, now an independent analyst. ''When people go to vote, even if they don't like the direction of the country, they may not trust Mitt Romney.''
Republicans are trying to seize on the tone of the campaign and turn it against the president, with a recent ad titled, ''Whatever happened to hope and change?''
Still, the respective Republican groups have spent far less time either introducing Mr. Romney or defending him. Some party leaders now wonder whether that was a mistake, given that the questions about his tax returns or his time at Bain Capital have become ubiquitous.
But despite tens of millions of dollars spent on ads this summer, the race remains essentially deadlocked. The Romney campaign is within striking distance in nearly every battleground state, aides to both campaigns say, with the president still holding more paths to reaching the 270 electoral votes needed.
While Mr. Obama rose through the ranks with a clarion call for a new kind of politics, there is little noticeable criticism about the tenor of the race from longtime supporters.
''There is no question the atmosphere is different than the last campaign. It has to be,'' said Judd Miner, a Chicago lawyer who has known the president for two decades and still refers to him by his first name. ''We learned the hard way with Kerry. It matters that Barack wins.''
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
GRAPHIC: PHOTOS: Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, attended the Olympics in London and President Obama held a rally last week in Portland, Ore. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES
LUKE SHARRETT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A16)
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1485 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
July 29, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Romney's problem: Voters like Obama more
BYLINE: Karen Tumulty
SECTION: A section; Pg. A05
LENGTH: 1235 words
If you believe the polls, it would appear there is one big factor standing in the way of Mitt Romney being elected president: Americans don't like him as well as they do Barack Obama.
That was confirmed again in a new USA Today-Gallup survey in which respondents gave Romney higher marks on the economic issues, which voters say they care most about this year: the economy, jobs, taxes, the deficit. But President Obama crushed Romney - 60 percent to 30 percent - on the question of which of the two was more likable. In April, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found an even larger gap, with 64 percent of those surveyed describing Obama as the friendlier, more likable candidate and 26 percent saying that about Romney.
"We're not going to win a personality contest. It's not an election for class president. It's who can best solve the problems of the country," said Romney's pollster, Neil Newhouse. "Likability isn't fixing the economy or helping the middle class make ends meet."
In part, the disparity reflects a natural reserve, even an awkwardness on Romney's part. It also reveals a sensitivity to the fact that there are upsides and downsides politically to defining himself through his biography - his Mormon faith, his spectacularly successful business career, his wealth and his stint as the governor of a liberal state.
Asked last week by NBC News's Brian Williams whether he is "unknowable to us," Romney insisted that he is trying and still has opportunities to introduce himself.
"You know, I've been on 'The Tonight Show' and Letterman and 'The View,' and I do some of those things to get better known," he said in the interview, which was broadcast Wednesday. "But at the same time, most folks won't really get to see me until the debates and will get a better sense of the character that I have."
Romney also seemed to acknowledge that he is not exactly a natural when it comes to selling the inner Mitt. "My wife and my sons and daughters-in-law, they're doing the best job they can to get the real story about who I am in public view," he said.
In every presidential election for the past two decades, the candidate viewed as more likable was the one who won.
Voters look at the ballot with the expectation that they are going to have "a pretty intimate relationship with the president," said Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod. "In addition to everything else, they know they are going to see a lot of him."
But Axelrod added, "Likability is a hard thing to measure." Indeed, Obama himself is no one's idea of a glad-hander.
What makes people warm up to a candidate, Axelrod said, is a sense that he is "someone who is accessible to me, someone who understands me, someone I can relate to."
Those perceived qualities about the president, strategists on both sides say, have helped keep the race close, despite Americans' disappointment with how the economy has performed under Obama.
"Likability is keeping Obama in the game at this point," said Mark McKinnon, a former top strategist for George W. Bush, who in his 2004 presidential reelection bid was famously deemed in one poll to be the candidate with whom undecided voters would rather have a beer (an irony for a teetotaling president).
"But Romney has a lot of potential to improve his likability numbers, particularly during the convention," McKinnon added. "Romney hasn't really revealed much of his personal story or his personality, so he's got a lot more potential to grow."
Romney did not do much to up his affability quotient on his London trip.
The campaign had hoped Romney's appearance there would reprise one of the most glorious chapters of his biography, his role in rescuing the scandal-ridden 2002 Winter Olympic Games, in Salt Lake City.
Instead, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee played the party pooper, raising doubts about security at the London Olympics, which drew public rebukes from Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson.While Obama's visit to the city as a candidate four years ago had throngs of Londoners chanting "Yes, we can," Romney's got a screaming headline Friday in the tabloid Sun: "Mitt the Twit."
GOP strategists within and outside the Romney campaign insist that the former Massachusetts governor still has plenty of time to acquaint the American people with his softer side, and that given all the problems the country faces, personality will not be the deciding factor this election year.
Those assumptions show in Romney's advertising. The standard playbook for challengers is to launch their campaigns with a round of biographical ads. Romney's first spots after securing the nomination focused on what he would do on "Day One" of his presidency. "Personal qualities are taking a back seat," Newhouse said. "What voters are asking us is, 'What's he going to do? How is he going to be different? How is he going to lead us out of this mess?' "
Sounding a bit like a sympathetic psychotherapist, a recent Republican National Committee ad acknowledged Americans' affection for Obama and offered them permission to move on.
"He tried. You tried," the announcer said. "It's okay to make a change."
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has tried to take advantage of a void that Romney has created by his failure thus far to fill in the picture of himself.
It has pounded him with ads that depict him as heartless, privileged and secretive. In an exercise of jujitsu, Obama's attacks focus on the very aspect of Romney's résumé that he has highlighted as his greatest strength: his business career.
"Who has owned the Mitt Romney biography? It's been the Obama campaign that has defined Mitt Romney," said Steve Schmidt, a veteran Republican strategist who helped run GOP nominee John McCain's campaign in 2008. "A lot of criticism people make is that Mitt Romney hasn't revealed a lot of himself in terms of who he is."
That will change, Newhouse vowed, noting that the Republican convention, at the end of August, offers a "tremendous opportunity."
"We've only scratched the surface in telling the Mitt story so far," the pollster said. "We are not going to miss the opportunity to do that."
Romney is starting to make an effort, as well, although his narrative is still a work in progress.
"I'm very proud of my heritage. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm proud of that. Some call that the Mormon Church. That's fine with me. I'll talk about my experiences in the church. There's no question they've shaped helped shape my perspective," he said in his NBC interview. "I have, like my wife, we try and give about 10 percent of our time, not just 10 percent of our money, but also of our time, to service in the community. Those things have enriched our life, have given us perspectives that go beyond the group of friends we might have otherwise had."
As uncomfortable as it may make him, the public will ask - indeed, demand - that Romney show more and more of that side of his life.
"There's much to admire about Mitt Romney, and part of the process of running for president is it requires you to open a window into your soul. The American people want to see the president three-dimensionally," said Schmidt. "The decision about whether you're going to talk about those things is made in the decision to run for president."
tumultyk@washpost.com
Peyton M. Craighill contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1486 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
July 29, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Romney camp asks Virginia to probe voter forms
BYLINE: Laura Vozzella
SECTION: Metro; Pg. C03
LENGTH: 893 words
RICHMOND - Dogs and cats have been invited to vote in the swing state of Virginia, and Mitt Romney smells a rat.
The Republican's presidential campaign is calling on state officials to launch a criminal investigation into voter registration forms that a District-based nonprofit recently mailed to hundreds of dead Virginians, children, non-citizens, pets and others ineligible to cast ballots.
The Voter Participation Center, which tries to get "historically underrepresented groups" such as women and minorities to vote, acknowledged that it had addressed some forms to people and animals with no business going to the polls. The State Board of Elections said "hundreds if not thousands" of applications were sent to ineligible voters.
The center blamed a faulty commercial mailing list and said the errant mailings represent a small fraction of the nearly 200,000 forms it has sent out across the state.
The mailings have revived talk of _blankvoter fraud in Virginia, a crucial swing state where President Obama and Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, are _blankdeadlocked in a recent poll. "This presents a very significant risk to the proper administration of the upcoming general election," Kathryn Biber, the campaign's general counsel, wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) and the State Board of Elections calling for a criminal investigation.
A spokesman for Cuccinelli said Wednesday that any investigation by the office would have to be initiated by a request from the elections board. The board, while sharply critical of the mailings, does not plan to seek an investigation "at this time," said Chairman Charles E. Judd.
The board has received more than 750 complaints, mostly from people whose pets or deceased relatives have received solicitations to register to vote, Judd said.
The center initially responded to complaints with a comical video that shows a dog talking about how unlikely it is that a cat could vote.
"Someone sent the cat a voter registration form," the dog says. "Cool out, cat. If you even tried to vote, election officials would catch you. You're not eligible, you're not 18, you walk on four feet and you cough up hairballs, which is gross."
Elections officials were not amused, chastising the center for its "flippant" video in a letter that also said the group violated state law by filling out applications with voters' names. The law requires that the form be filled out by the applicant or by dictation.
Officials at the center have since dropped the lighthearted tone and have stressed that they mailed applications for registering to vote - forms widely available at government offices and online - and not voter ID cards, which can serve as identification at the polls and can be issued only by elections officials.
"We have nothing to do with that issue, voter fraud. We send people applications to fill out in the mail," said Page S. Gardner, the center's president. "It's up to them to fill out the form and obey all the state laws and federal laws."
But for some, the mailings have reignited fears that Virginia is vulnerable to voter fraud, an issue that has been bitterly debated around the country in recent years. Citing concerns about the integrity of elections, Virginia's GOP-controlled _blankGeneral Assembly this year closed a loophole that had allowed voters to cast ballots without showing identification. Democrats charged that the voter ID law, while more moderate than versions Republicans have recently pushed in other states, was intended to make it harder for minorities and other Democratic-leaning groups to vote. State Sen. Thomas A. Garrett Jr. (R), a Louisa County prosecutor who successfully tried two felons who registered to vote in 2009, said one of the two registered with a form mailed to her by the Voter Participation Center.
"Clearly, they haven't gotten the message," Garrett said.
In her letter, Biber contends that the center's mass mailing may have violated state laws, including those that prohibit falsifying a registration application and communicating false information to voters about their registration status.
Gardner said the group tries to make its mailing list "as perfect as possible." Dead people can wind up on a mailing list because it is compiled from things such as magazine subscriptions, which often are not updated with a new name when a spouse dies. Some people have subscriptions in the names of their pets for reasons that Gardner, who described herself as "a non-pet owner," said she did not understand.
"This is very sloppy prospect mailing going on," Judd said. He said he was particularly concerned that the mailings told recipients that "records show that you are eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election." That wording makes it sound as if the center is an official government elections entity, he said.
The focus on the errant mailings is a "man-bites-dog story" in Gardner's view, one that she said misses the bigger picture - that nearly 2 million eligible Virginians are not registered to vote.
"It's fun to write about Mozart and other pets getting these voter registration applications," Gardner said, referring to a dead dog who was sent a form from her group. "[But] at some point, we have to look at ourselves and say, 'Really, what's the story here?' "
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1487 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
July 29, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Romney ad takes the trees but leaves the forest
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A section; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 1067 words
"To say what he said is to say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple Computer or that Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft or that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor Company or that Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's or that Papa John's didn't build Papa John's Pizza. This is the height of foolishness. It shows how out of touch he is with the character of America."
- Mitt Romney, July 18, 2012
There are few original ideas in politics, just old arguments.
We were reminded of this as we considered the ruckus over comments by President Obama that his Republican rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, criticized as an attack on free enterprise. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee immediately began jabbing Obama on the campaign trail, and the Romney campaign rushed out an attack ad focused on Obama's words - though, as we shall see, it sliced and diced the president's quote to make it seem much worse.
We will stipulate that taking snippets of quotes and twisting them is an age-old political tactic. In May, _blankwe gave Two Pinocchios to Obama for performing out-of-context quote-snipping on Romney's words. But that doesn't make it right. Let's take a look at what Obama actually said and then how it has been interpreted. The Facts The president, during _blanka campaign speech in Roanoke, tried to make the case that wealthy people need to have higher taxes in order to help serve the public good. Here is what he said, with the words used in the Romney campaign ad in bold type: "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back. They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
The biggest problem with Romney's ad is that it leaves out just enough chunks of Obama's words - such as a reference to "roads and bridges" - so that it sounds like Obama is attacking individual initiative. The ad deceivingly cuts away from Obama speaking in order to make it seem as if the sentences follow one another, when in fact eight sentences are snipped away.
Suddenly, the word "that" appears as if it is referring to a business, rather than (apparently) to roads and bridges. (Granted, the president's grammar is off.)
But instead of blaming Obama for bad economics, maybe Romney should have called Obama a plagiarizer. That's because Obama's words seem suspiciously similar to a speech last year by Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, which became a YouTube sensation (almost 1 million views).
Here's what the Massachusetts Democrat said, making the point clearer than Obama did:
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. . . . Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
But, then, maybe Warren is the plagiarizer? Here's how President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it in _blanka message to Congress in 1935: "Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort. The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market. Therefore, in spite of the great importance in our national life of the efforts and ingenuity of unusual individuals, the people in the mass have inevitably helped to make large fortunes possible. . . . Therefore, the duty rests upon the government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes."
In other words, this is an argument that Democrats have been making for decades, one that Republicans have every right to reject.
Romney, however, descends into silly season when he extrapolates Obama's quote and says that means Obama believes Steve Jobs did not build Apple Inc.
Here's what Obama _blanksaid when Jobs died earlier this year, "By building one of the planet's most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity."
That sounds like Obama believes that Jobs really did build his company. He did not mention the roads to Cupertino, Calif.
The Pinocchio Test
Obama certainly could take from lessons from Warren or Roosevelt on how to frame this argument in a way that is less susceptible for quote-snipping. And Romney certainly could answer Obama's argument by engaging in a serious discussion about whether the wealthy should pay much more in taxes as a matter of social good and equity. That would be grounds for an elevated, interesting and important debate.
But instead, by focusing on one ill-phrased sentence, Romney and his campaign have decided to pretend that Obama is talking about something different - and then further extrapolated it so that it becomes ridiculous. That's not very original at all.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read previous Fact Checker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker.
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1488 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
July 29, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
Swing states to weather brunt of deluge of ad spending
BYLINE: Dan Eggen;T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A section; Pg. A07
LENGTH: 1162 words
Barack Obama rode to victory in 2008 on a record wave of fundraising that allowed him to drown his opponent in advertising and rack up victories far into Republican territory.
But with just 100 days until the 2012 election, President Obama faces a far more difficult financial task in his bid for reelection - battling a well-funded challenger in a narrow band of swing states, which will be inundated with attack ads and campaign visits.
Four years ago, the two presidential campaigns spent big in nearly half the country. But the fight this year is concentrated in fewer than a dozen states that are suffering through more political ads than ever before. In the pivotal swing state of Ohio, Obama has dumped $12 million on ads so far, which is four times the amount he spent at this point in 2008. The deluge is funded not only by Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, but by a motley and shadowy mix of outside groups, many of them backed by millionaires. The contest also marks the first time since the post-Watergate era in which neither candidate is taking advantage of public financing, which would have limited the amount of money the campaigns could spend.
The result is a crabbed contest far removed from 2008, when Obama spent relatively little time hosting fundraisers yet still managed to bring in as much as $6 million a day in the final months of the race. Obama's figures are down this year, however, and both candidates are racing to squeeze in as many donor events as possible. This weekend, the Obama campaign was planning thousands of events across the country aimed at mobilizing volunteers 100 days before the election.
"There's much less room for error in 2012 than there was in 2008," said Ken Goldstein, president of Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ad spending nationwide. "I don't think we're going to see a world where Obama has an advantage in money."
The incumbent is still a champion fundraiser by historical standards, particularly among grass-roots donors. But in recent months, he has fallen behind Romney and the Republican Party, which outraised Obama and the Democrats in May and June. The presumptive GOP nominee is also bolstered by well-funded super PACs and other conservative groups. Under the gun financially and battling low approval ratings, Obama's campaign is concentrating its advertising in nine swing states this year. That's down from more than 15 states that it was targeting at this point in the 2008 election, when Obama was competitive in red-leaning states such as Indiana and even toyed with attempting to flip GOP strongholds such as Georgia and Montana.
Many of those targets are out of reach this year, resulting in a much heavier dose of advertising in the remaining swing states. Many voters are already turned off by the deluge, making it even harder for Obama or Romney to break through, according to experts and voter interviews.
"It's October in July," said Erika Franklin Fowler, director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which analyzes campaign ads. "This just hasn't happened before. . . . In 2008, we saw a lot more markets in play than we do this cycle. There are more ads crammed into a much smaller air space."
In Cleveland - the largest market in a state crucial to both sides - the campaigns and their allies have spent $13.6 million on broadcast television, according to data from Goldstein's firm. In a single week this month, the campaigns spent $1.2 million to air more than 2,000 ads on Cleveland stations; that's an average of one political spot every five minutes, 24 hours a day.
Similar volumes have inundated the rest of Ohio. "The ads are ridiculous," said Julie Johnson, 48, a high school English teacher and Obama supporter from Perrysburg, near Toledo. "I'm very tired of the ads, and it's only July."
Jane Peters, owner of Media Management Services, which handles advertising purchases in the Columbus market, said her regular clients are routinely being bumped off the air by political groups that will pay top dollar for spots, particularly during news programs.
"It boggles the mind the money that's being spent," Peters said. "At this rate, by September and October, they're going to take every spot that's out there."
Florida, home to some of the most expensive markets in the nation, has seen $30 million in spending related to the Obama-Romney race so far. In the third week of July, campaigns and outside groups spent $1.2 million on 1,741 spots in Tampa alone.
Tim Post, a 34-year-old Republican from Tampa who voted for Obama in 2008 but is undecided this year, said he's tuning out the negative ads from both sides. "I can't stand all the trash talking," he said. "I'm so over it. I've turned a deaf ear to it. I can't handle it."
In New Kent County, Va., in another key battleground state, retired federal radar technician Harvey Caldwell Jr., 77, estimated seeing the same political ad half a dozen times in one evening. He and his wife, Julie, 72, say they support Obama.
"We know it's going to get worse," Julie Caldwell said. "We don't like the negative stuff. . . . We made our choice already."
The difficulty facing Obama is evident in overall ad spending. As of last week, Romney and his allies had outspent Obama and his allies by $77 million to $71 million, a reversal from four years ago when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was badly outgunned by Democrats. The disparity is likely to grow because Romney and his Republican allies have more money in the bank for the fall.
Obama advisers say that, even if he is outspent on the airwaves, they are confident that his massive ground operation and get-out-the-vote efforts will tip the scales. Romney spent nearly all the money that he raised during his fight for the GOP nomination earlier this year, while Obama used that time to open offices and hire staff.
"Grass-roots giving is what's powering this campaign," said Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher. "Our donor base is as diverse as the country is, and we are succeeding at reactivating longtime supporters and finding new ones."
Nonetheless, the campaign frequently casts Obama as a financial underdog in desperate straits, a far cry from the optimistic messages of four years ago. One fundraising plea last week from Obama began, "My upcoming birthday next week could be the last one I celebrate as president of the United States . . . "
At a July 23 fundraiser in Oakland, Calif., Obama told the crowd that "over the next four months, the other side will spend more money than we have ever seen on ads.""Now I'm asking for your help," he said a few moments later. "Now I'm asking for your vote. I'm asking you to knock on doors and make phone calls and do all the things we did in 2008."
eggend@washpost.com
farnamt@washpost.com
Josh Hicks in Florida, Laura Vozzella in Virginia and Matt Zapotosky in Ohio contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1489 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
July 29, 2012 Sunday 8:12 PM EST
EIGHT Questions
SECTION: A section; Pg. A08
LENGTH: 2101 words
1Will this campaign be relentlessly negative to the end?
Isn't the answer already obvious? President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney have already spent $59 million to air more than 170,000 negative ads, according to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group. And that doesn't include the handiwork of the super PACs, which are spending prodigiously and whose ads will be even more negative than those by the candidates.
In the estimation of John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University who wrote a book about the value of negative ads, this campaign will be "the most negative since the advent of television." The reason: "Neither has a very solid vision about the future except, 'You don't want the other guy,' " Democratic strategist Rick Ridder said.
Not that there won't be some positive ads. The president used the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics to air a generally positive commercial. At some point, say Republican strategists, Romney will need to define himself more positively than he's done so far.
The candidates' advisers think that, however much voters decry the negativity, they watch and can be swayed by negative ads. The more you see an ad on television, the more you can assume the candidate behind it thinks it's working to his benefit. That's why the Obama attack ad featuring Romney singing "America the Beautiful" is running constantly in swing-state markets.
What's interesting so far is that the barrage of negative ads hasn't changed the basic dynamics of the race. As the 100-day clock starts to tick down, the race is still very much within the margin of error and neither side expects that to change much.
2 Will Romney's choice of a vice presidential running mate make any difference?
This is the next big moment for Romney. Once he returns from his overseas trip, vice presidential speculation will become the dominant theme of the campaign coverage until a decision is announced.
In the short term, Romney's decision will be important. His choice will say something about Romney and what message he wants to send about his candidacy. The process of picking the running mate will be the first thing he does that will be looked at in the context of presidential decision making.
But what impact will it have? Would Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio deliver his state in November? Would former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty put his state in play - or help elsewhere in the upper Midwest? Would Sen. Marco Rubio energize non-Cuban Hispanic voters in Florida and beyond? Is an out-of-box pick too risky after Sarah Palin?
William Mayer, a political scientist at Northeastern University, said the likeliest way Romney's choice could make a difference is if he picks someone widely judged not to be ready to become president. Picking someone to help with a particular group of voters, he said, likely would fall flat. A swing-state running mate, however, might add votes in that state.
But in the end, Romney's choice might not make much difference. Mayer believes that Dan Quayle cost George H.W. Bush votes in 1988, but if a troubled introduction of a vice presidential running mate mattered, Bush wouldn't have been elected that year.
3Is the president hostage to the economic news between now and November?
Saying the president is hostage to the economic news may be too strong, but the weak economy is a main reason Romney has a chance to win and there's little Obama can do to change the trajectory.
Friday's report showing that gross domestic product grew at a rate of just 1.5 percent in the second quarter followed a June jobs report showing the third straight month with fewer than 100,000 jobs added to the workforce. Another jobs report is coming at the end of the week.
Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at UCLA, argues that Obama is tied to what has already happened this year. Voters' perceptions about the economy, she said, become baked by the end of the second quarter. That's bad news for the president, which is why Republican strategists such as Whit Ayers and Jon McHenry argue that "if the news doesn't get better by November, Obama doesn't win."
The economy isn't the only thing that will decide the election, but it's difficult to point to anything more important. It's the central tenet of Romney's candidacy and the reason Romney advisers remain confident that he will prevail in November, despite some of the problems he's had the past month.
In the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, Romney gets higher ratings on fixing the economy. The latest ad from the Republican National Committee is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger appeal to voters to get rid of the president. That ad ends with the line, "He tried. You tried. It's okay to make a change."
As Doug Rivers of Stanford University put it, the economy is "neither so bad that Obama is sure to lose nor so good that Obama is sure to win."
4Do Romney's wealth and business record make him more or less electable?
You'll get more debate about this than almost anything else about the campaign, much of it colored by partisanship. Republicans think that, in the end, Romney's business résumé is a plus and his wealth won't be held against him. Democrats think the combination could be decisive in keeping the president in office.
"Romney doesn't seem capable of feeling people's pain," said Democratic strategist Craig Varoga. "His work at Bain is a huge disability," added Steve Rosenthal, another Democratic strategist with longtime ties to the labor movement. Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said the way Romney has dealt with his wealth "is a negative in terms of being in touch."
Republicans disagree. "It definitely makes him more electable," said Hogan Gidley, a GOP strategist. Steve Grubbs, an Iowa Republican strategist, said Romney's business background, "will be a benefit no matter how much the president's team tries to trash it."
Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, said that, on balance given the polarized electorate, "it will mainly reinforce the views of each party's base - Republicans like it, Democrats don't."
Obama's campaign has pummeled Romney over his work at Bain Capital. The president's advisers are convinced the attacks are eroding Romney's image in the swing states. Romney advisers think dissatisfaction with the president and the economy will trump those attacks in the end.
But even a number of Republicans say Romney has to make a more effective case on behalf of his business record - and show more empathy as a candidate - to offset the Democrats' attacks.
5 With the conventions back-to- back, will either candidate get a real bounce in the polls?
The conventions will be held on consecutive weeks: Republicans in Tampa starting Aug. 27, Democrats starting a week later in Charlotte. Romney has the most at stake, the most work to do, and the biggest potential gain.
Conventions are anachronistic but still important. They're anachronistic because they lack drama, excitement or suspense. All the significant decisions have been made in advance, and the two nominees control all events and script them down to the minute.
But they are still important for many of the same reasons. Candidates can present themselves to the voters largely unfiltered. They write the script as they see fit. They tell the story the way they want it told. That sounds simple, but it isn't.
Some past conventions have changed the course of campaigns. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running third behind George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot the month before his convention but came roaring out of his convention ahead, thanks in part to Perot's unexpected decision to drop out of the race. George H.W. Bush helped turn around his campaign in 1988 with his "Read my lips, no new taxes" acceptance speech.
Republicans think that a successful convention will launch Romney into the final two months of campaigning. Democrats argue that Obama, by going second, will be able to rebut what happens in Tampa. But neither side expects lasting changes in the polls from the conventions.
6 Which campaign is likely to have the advantage in money?
When the campaign started, few thought Obama could be outspent by his Republican opponent. Lately, his campaign has been rattling the tin cup, singing a tale of woe about what Romney and the Republicans will do. The truth is, neither side will be short on money.
The president raised about $800 million in 2008 and will have about the same this year. Romney came out of the primaries with his campaign bank account nearly depleted, but he and the Republican National Committee have been raising money at a prodigious clip since then - faster than Obama and the Democrats.
There is so much money sloshing through this election that voters in the most contested states will be saturated with ads, phone calls, mail and knocks on the door. With the electorate already polarized, this amounts to too much money chasing too few voters.
Republican super PACs potentially give Romney the advantage - and give the Obama team nightmares. "This may be a decisive factor in the election," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist. "The president and his team will not be able to outspend Romney like they outspent McCain. That by itself will make this election a lot more like 2000 and 2004."
7How important are the debates likely to be this year?
That depends on whether you think debates ever really matter. They certainly mattered during the Republican nomination contest in the winter. Those 20 debates shaped the campaign and the fortunes of many of the candidates. Think Rick Perry.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan used his debate against Jimmy Carter to turn the election decisively in his direction. But some scholars say debates matter less than people think. "There just isn't much evidence that debates move the polls, or that any movement is truly consequential for who wins the race," said John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University.
Still, no one will be preparing for the debates as if they aren't potential turning points. In a close election, every encounter carries opportunities and risks. Bombarded by ads, voters may be looking for another way to evaluate Obama and Romney. "The three televised debates afford the only chance for undecided voters to do some unvarnished, unfiltered comparison shopping," said Bill Whalen of the Hoover Institution.
The first debate will be on Oct. 3 in Denver, the last on Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla. Both candidates have shown strong debating skills. For Romney, the debates offer the chance to close the stature gap with an incumbent president. For Obama, they provide an opportunity to impress on voters that the election is a choice, not a referendum.
Decisive or not, the debates will dominate October.
8Which groups of voters do the two campaigns care about most?
Mobilizing their bases will be the first priority for Obama and Romney. With so few truly undecided voters available this year, turning out committed supporters becomes as important as persuading those still wavering.
For Obama, that means making sure he gets huge turnout again among African Americans (his advisers are confident that he will), that he motivates Hispanics to come out in big numbers and wins at least 65 percent of their votes. His biggest challenge is likely to be among young voters, who were so enthusiastic four years ago and aren't so engaged this year.
Romney needs the conservative base of his party motivated. Though he sometimes struggled with some of these voters, particularly evangelical Christians, in the primaries, all signs suggest that their deep dislike of the president will be enough to get them to the polls. Romney also needs a big vote among white non-college voters, particularly men. They don't much like the president, but if the Obama campaign's attacks on Romney's business record stick, some of them might not vote for the challenger.
Many strategists outside the campaigns say women could hold the key to victory in November. In general, Obama will do better among unmarried women, while Romney will do better among married women. But there will be a real battle over independent women, particularly suburban mothers.
Of course, not all voters will be treated equally. Based on where advertising dollars are being spent, most of the attention will be focused on voters in fewer than 10 states.
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1490 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
July 29, 2012 Sunday
Met 2 Edition
Romney's problem: Voters like Obama more
BYLINE: Karen Tumulty
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A05
LENGTH: 1228 words
If you believe the polls, it would appear there is one big factor standing in the way of Mitt Romney being elected president: Americans don't like him as well as they do Barack Obama.
That was confirmed again in a new USA Today-Gallup survey in which respondents gave Romney higher marks on the economic issues, which voters say they care most about this year: the economy, jobs, taxes, the deficit. But President Obama crushed Romney - 60 percent to 30 percent - on the question of which of the two was more likable.
In April, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found an even larger gap, with 64 percent of those surveyed describing Obama as the friendlier, more likable candidate and 26 percent saying that about Romney.
"We're not going to win a personality contest. It's not an election for class president. It's who can best solve the problems of the country," said Romney's pollster, Neil Newhouse. "Likability isn't fixing the economy or helping the middle class make ends meet."
In part, the disparity reflects a natural reserve, even an awkwardness on Romney's part. It also reveals a sensitivity to the fact that there are upsides and downsides politically to defining himself through his biography - his Mormon faith, his spectacularly successful business career, his wealth and his stint as the governor of a liberal state.
Asked last week by NBC News's Brian Williams whether he is "unknowable to us," Romney insisted that he is trying and still has opportunities to introduce himself.
"You know, I've been on 'The Tonight Show' and Letterman and 'The View,' and I do some of those things to get better known," he said in the interview, which was broadcast Wednesday. "But at the same time, most folks won't really get to see me until the debates and will get a better sense of the character that I have."
Romney also seemed to acknowledge that he is not exactly a natural when it comes to selling the inner Mitt. "My wife and my sons and daughters-in-law, they're doing the best job they can to get the real story about who I am in public view," he said.
In every presidential election for the past two decades, the candidate viewed as more likable was the one who won.
Voters look at the ballot with the expectation that they are going to have "a pretty intimate relationship with the president," said Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod. "In addition to everything else, they know they are going to see a lot of him."
But Axelrod added, "Likability is a hard thing to measure." Indeed, Obama himself is no one's idea of a glad-hander.
What makes people warm up to a candidate, Axelrod said, is a sense that he is "someone who is accessible to me, someone who understands me, someone I can relate to."
Those perceived qualities about the president, strategists on both sides say, have helped keep the race close, despite Americans' disappointment with how the economy has performed under Obama.
"Likability is keeping Obama in the game at this point," said Mark McKinnon, a former top strategist for George W. Bush, who in his 2004 presidential reelection bid was famously deemed in one poll to be the candidate with whom undecided voters would rather have a beer (an irony for a teetotaling president).
"But Romney has a lot of potential to improve his likability numbers, particularly during the convention," McKinnon added. "Romney hasn't really revealed much of his personal story or his personality, so he's got a lot more potential to grow."
Romney did not do much to up his affability quotient on his London trip.
The campaign had hoped Romney's appearance there would reprise one of the most glorious chapters of his biography, his role in rescuing the scandal-ridden 2002 Winter Olympic Games, in Salt Lake City.
Instead, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee played the party pooper, raising doubts about security at the London Olympics, which drew public rebukes from Prime Minister David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson.
While Obama's visit to the city as a candidate four years ago had throngs of Londoners chanting "Yes, we can," Romney's got a screaming headline Friday in the tabloid Sun: "Mitt the Twit."
GOP strategists within and outside the Romney campaign insist that the former Massachusetts governor still has plenty of time to acquaint the American people with his softer side, and that given all the problems the country faces, personality will not be the deciding factor this election year.
Those assumptions show in Romney's advertising. The standard playbook for challengers is to launch their campaigns with a round of biographical ads. Romney's first spots after securing the nomination focused on what he would do on "Day One" of his presidency.
"Personal qualities are taking a back seat," Newhouse said. "What voters are asking us is, 'What's he going to do? How is he going to be different? How is he going to lead us out of this mess?' "
Sounding a bit like a sympathetic psychotherapist, a recent Republican National Committee ad acknowledged Americans' affection for Obama and offered them permission to move on.
"He tried. You tried," the announcer said. "It's okay to make a change."
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has tried to take advantage of a void that Romney has created by his failure thus far to fill in the picture of himself.
It has pounded him with ads that depict him as heartless, privileged and secretive. In an exercise of jujitsu, Obama's attacks focus on the very aspect of Romney's résumé that he has highlighted as his greatest strength: his business career.
"Who has owned the Mitt Romney biography? It's been the Obama campaign that has defined Mitt Romney," said Steve Schmidt, a veteran Republican strategist who helped run GOP nominee John McCain's campaign in 2008. "A lot of criticism people make is that Mitt Romney hasn't revealed a lot of himself in terms of who he is."
That will change, Newhouse vowed, noting that the Republican convention, at the end of August, offers a "tremendous opportunity."
"We've only scratched the surface in telling the Mitt story so far," the pollster said. "We are not going to miss the opportunity to do that."
Romney is starting to make an effort, as well, although his narrative is still a work in progress.
"I'm very proud of my heritage. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm proud of that. Some call that the Mormon Church. That's fine with me. I'll talk about my experiences in the church. There's no question they've shaped helped shape my perspective," he said in his NBC interview. "I have, like my wife, we try and give about 10 percent of our time, not just 10 percent of our money, but also of our time, to service in the community. Those things have enriched our life, have given us perspectives that go beyond the group of friends we might have otherwise had."
As uncomfortable as it may make him, the public will ask - indeed, demand - that Romney show more and more of that side of his life.
"There's much to admire about Mitt Romney, and part of the process of running for president is it requires you to open a window into your soul. The American people want to see the president three-dimensionally," said Schmidt. "The decision about whether you're going to talk about those things is made in the decision to run for president."
tumultyk@washpost.com
Peyton M. Craighill contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1491 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
July 29, 2012 Sunday
Regional Edition
Romney camp asks Virginia to probe voter forms
BYLINE: Laura Vozzella
SECTION: METRO; Pg. C03
LENGTH: 884 words
DATELINE: RICHMOND
RICHMOND - Dogs and cats have been invited to vote in the swing state of Virginia, and Mitt Romney smells a rat.
The Republican's presidential campaign is calling on state officials to launch a criminal investigation into voter registration forms that a District-based nonprofit recently mailed to hundreds of dead Virginians, children, non-citizens, pets and others ineligible to cast ballots.
The Voter Participation Center, which tries to get "historically underrepresented groups" such as women and minorities to vote, acknowledged that it had addressed some forms to people and animals with no business going to the polls. The State Board of Elections said "hundreds if not thousands" of applications were sent to ineligible voters.
The center blamed a faulty commercial mailing list and said the errant mailings represent a small fraction of the nearly 200,000 forms it has sent out across the state.
The mailings have revived talk of _blankvoter fraud in Virginia, a crucial swing state where President Obama and Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, are _blankdeadlocked in a recent poll.
"This presents a very significant risk to the proper administration of the upcoming general election," Kathryn Biber, the campaign's general counsel, wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) and the State Board of Elections calling for a criminal investigation.
A spokesman for Cuccinelli said Wednesday that any investigation by the office would have to be initiated by a request from the elections board. The board, while sharply critical of the mailings, does not plan to seek an investigation "at this time," said Chairman Charles E. Judd.
The board has received more than 750 complaints, mostly from people whose pets or deceased relatives have received solicitations to register to vote, Judd said.
The center initially responded to complaints with a comical video that shows a dog talking about how unlikely it is that a cat could vote.
"Someone sent the cat a voter registration form," the dog says. "Cool out, cat. If you even tried to vote, election officials would catch you. You're not eligible, you're not 18, you walk on four feet and you cough up hairballs, which is gross."
Elections officials were not amused, chastising the center for its "flippant" video in a letter that also said the group violated state law by filling out applications with voters' names. The law requires that the form be filled out by the applicant or by dictation.
Officials at the center have since dropped the lighthearted tone and have stressed that they mailed applications for registering to vote - forms widely available at government offices and online - and not voter ID cards, which can serve as identification at the polls and can be issued only by elections officials.
"We have nothing to do with that issue, voter fraud. We send people applications to fill out in the mail," said Page S. Gardner, the center's president. "It's up to them to fill out the form and obey all the state laws and federal laws."
But for some, the mailings have reignited fears that Virginia is vulnerable to voter fraud, an issue that has been bitterly debated around the country in recent years. Citing concerns about the integrity of elections, Virginia's GOP-controlled _blankGeneral Assembly this year closed a loophole that had allowed voters to cast ballots without showing identification. Democrats charged that the voter ID law, while more moderate than versions Republicans have recently pushed in other states, was intended to make it harder for minorities and other Democratic-leaning groups to vote.
State Sen. Thomas A. Garrett Jr. (R), a Louisa County prosecutor who successfully tried two felons who registered to vote in 2009, said one of the two registered with a form mailed to her by the Voter Participation Center.
"Clearly, they haven't gotten the message," Garrett said.
In her letter, Biber contends that the center's mass mailing may have violated state laws, including those that prohibit falsifying a registration application and communicating false information to voters about their registration status.
Gardner said the group tries to make its mailing list "as perfect as possible." Dead people can wind up on a mailing list because it is compiled from things such as magazine subscriptions, which often are not updated with a new name when a spouse dies. Some people have subscriptions in the names of their pets for reasons that Gardner, who described herself as "a non-pet owner," said she did not understand.
"This is very sloppy prospect mailing going on," Judd said. He said he was particularly concerned that the mailings told recipients that "records show that you are eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election." That wording makes it sound as if the center is an official government elections entity, he said.
The focus on the errant mailings is a "man-bites-dog story" in Gardner's view, one that she said misses the bigger picture - that nearly 2 million eligible Virginians are not registered to vote.
"It's fun to write about Mozart and other pets getting these voter registration applications," Gardner said, referring to a dead dog who was sent a form from her group. "[But] at some point, we have to look at ourselves and say, 'Really, what's the story here?' "
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1492 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
July 29, 2012 Sunday
Suburban Edition
Swing states to weather brunt of deluge of ad spending
BYLINE: Dan Eggen;T.W. Farnam
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A07
LENGTH: 1145 words
Barack Obama rode to victory in 2008 on a record wave of fundraising that allowed him to drown his opponent in advertising and rack up victories far into Republican territory.
But with just 100 days until the 2012 election, President Obama faces a far more difficult financial task in his bid for reelection - battling a well-funded challenger in a narrow band of swing states, which will be inundated with attack ads and campaign visits.
Four years ago, the two presidential campaigns spent big in nearly half the country. But the fight this year is concentrated in fewer than a dozen states that are suffering through more political ads than ever before. In the pivotal swing state of Ohio, Obama has dumped $12 million on ads so far, which is four times the amount he spent at this point in 2008.
The deluge is funded not only by Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, but by a motley and shadowy mix of outside groups, many of them backed by millionaires. The contest also marks the first time since the post-Watergate era in which neither candidate is taking advantage of public financing, which would have limited the amount of money the campaigns could spend.
The result is a crabbed contest far removed from 2008, when Obama spent relatively little time hosting fundraisers yet still managed to bring in as much as $6 million a day in the final months of the race. Obama's figures are down this year, however, and both candidates are racing to squeeze in as many donor eventsas possible.
This weekend, the Obama campaign was planning thousands of events across the country aimed at mobilizing volunteers 100 days before the election.
"There's much less room for error in 2012 than there was in 2008," said Ken Goldstein, president of Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ad spending nationwide. "I don't think we're going to see a world where Obama has an advantage in money."
The incumbent is still a champion fundraiser by historical standards, particularly among grass-roots donors. But in recent months, he hasfallen behind Romney and the Republican Party, which outraised Obama and the Democrats in May and June. The presumptive GOP nominee is also bolstered by well-funded super PACs and other conservative groups.
Under the gun financially and battling low approval ratings, Obama's campaign is concentrating its advertising in nine swing states this year. That's down from more than 15 states that it was targeting at this point in the 2008 election, when Obama was competitive in red-leaning states such as Indiana and even toyed with attempting to flip GOP strongholds such as Georgia and Montana.
Many of those targets are out of reach this year, resulting in a much heavier dose of advertising in the remaining swing states. Many voters are already turned off by the deluge, making it even harder for Obama or Romney to break through, according to experts and voter interviews.
"It's October in July," said Erika Franklin Fowler, director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which analyzes campaign ads. "This just hasn't happened before. . . . In 2008, we saw a lot more markets in play than we do this cycle. There are more ads crammed into a much smaller air space."
In Cleveland - the largest market in a state crucial to both sides - the campaigns and their allies have spent $13.6 million on broadcast television, according to data from Goldstein's firm. In a single week this month, the campaigns spent $1.2 million to air more than 2,000 ads on Cleveland stations; that's an average of one political spot every five minutes, 24 hours a day.
Similar volumes have inundated the rest of Ohio. "The ads are ridiculous," said Julie Johnson, 48, a high school English teacher and Obama supporter from Perrysburg, near Toledo. "I'm very tired of the ads, and it's only July."
Jane Peters, owner of Media Management Services, which handles advertising purchases in the Columbus market, said her regular clients are routinely being bumped off the air by political groups that will pay top dollar for spots, particularly during news programs.
"It boggles the mind the money that's being spent," Peters said. "At this rate, by September and October, they're going to take every spot that's out there."
Florida, home to some of the most expensive markets in the nation, has seen $30 million in spending related to the Obama-Romney race so far. In the third week of July, campaigns and outside groups spent $1.2 million on 1,741 spots in Tampa alone.
Tim Post, a 34-year-old Republican from Tampa who voted for Obama in 2008 but is undecided this year, said he's tuning out the negative ads from both sides. "I can't stand all the trash talking," he said. "I'm so over it. I've turned a deaf ear to it. I can't handle it."
In New Kent County, Va., in another key battleground state, retired federal radar technician Harvey Caldwell Jr., 77, estimated seeing the same political ad half a dozen times in one evening. He and his wife, Julie, 72, say they support Obama.
"We know it's going to get worse," Julie Caldwell said. "We don't like the negative stuff. . . . We made our choice already."
The difficulty facing Obama is evident in overall ad spending. As of last week, Romney and his allies had outspent Obama and his allies by $77 million to $71 million, a reversal from four years ago when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was badly outgunned by Democrats. The disparity is likely to grow because Romney and his Republican allies have more money in the bank for the fall.
Obama advisers say that, even if he is outspent on the airwaves, they are confident that his massive ground operation and get-out-the-vote efforts will tip the scales. Romney spent nearly all the money that he raised during his fight for the GOP nomination earlier this year, while Obama used that time to open offices and hire staff.
"Grass-roots giving is what's powering this campaign," said Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher. "Our donor base is as diverse as the country is, and we are succeeding at reactivating longtime supporters and finding new ones."
Nonetheless, the campaign frequently casts Obama as a financial underdog in desperate straits, a far cry from the optimistic messages of four years ago. One fundraising plea last week from Obama began, "My upcoming birthday next week could be the last one I celebrate as president of the United States . . . "
At a July 23fundraiser in Oakland, Calif., Obama told the crowd that "over the next four months, the other side will spend more money than we have ever seen on ads."
"Now I'm asking for your help," he said a few moments later. "Now I'm asking for your vote. I'm asking you to knock on doors and make phone calls and do all the things we did in 2008."
eggend@washpost.com
farnamt@washpost.com
Josh Hicks in Florida, Laura Vozzella in Virginia and Matt Zapotosky in Ohio contributed to this report.
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1493 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
July 29, 2012 Sunday
Suburban Edition
EIGHT Questions
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A08
LENGTH: 2059 words
1Will this campaign be relentlessly negative to the end?
Isn't the answer already obvious? President Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney have already spent $59 million to air more than 170,000 negative ads, according to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group. And that doesn't include the handiwork of the super PACs, which are spending prodigiously and whose ads will be even more negative than those by the candidates.
In the estimation of John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University who wrote a book about the value of negative ads, this campaign will be "the most negative since the advent of television." The reason: "Neither has a very solid vision about the future except, 'You don't want the other guy,' " Democratic strategist Rick Ridder said.
Not that there won't be some positive ads. The president used the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics to air a generally positive commercial. At some point, say Republican strategists, Romney will need to define himself more positively than he's done so far.
The candidates' advisers think that, however much voters decry the negativity, they watch and can be swayed by negative ads. The more you see an ad on television, the more you can assume the candidate behind it thinks it's working to his benefit. That's why the Obama attack ad featuring Romney singing "America the Beautiful" is running constantly in swing-state markets.
What's interesting so far is that the barrage of negative ads hasn't changed the basic dynamics of the race. As the 100-day clock starts to tick down, the race is still very much within the margin of error and neither side expects that to change much.
2 Will Romney's choice of a vice presidential running mate make any difference?
This is the next big moment for Romney. Once he returns from his overseas trip, vice presidential speculation will become the dominant theme of the campaign coverage until a decision is announced.
In the short term, Romney's decision will be important. His choice will say something about Romney and what message he wants to send about his candidacy. The process of picking the running mate will be the first thing he does that will be looked at in the context of presidential decision making.
But what impact will it have? Would Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio deliver his state in November? Would former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty put his state in play - or help elsewhere in the upper Midwest? Would Sen. Marco Rubio energize non-Cuban Hispanic voters in Florida and beyond? Is an out-of-box pick too risky after Sarah Palin?
William Mayer, a political scientist at Northeastern University, said the likeliest way Romney's choice could make a difference is if he picks someone widely judged not to be ready to become president. Picking someone to help with a particular group of voters, he said, likely would fall flat. A swing-state running mate, however, might add votes in that state.
But in the end, Romney's choice might not make much difference. Mayer believes that Dan Quayle cost George H.W. Bush votes in 1988, but if a troubled introduction of a vice presidential running mate mattered, Bush wouldn't have been elected that year.
3Is the president hostage to the economic news between now and November?
Saying the president is hostage to the economic news may be too strong, but the weak economy is a main reason Romney has a chance to win and there's little Obama can do to change the trajectory.
Friday's report showing that gross domestic product grew at a rate of just 1.5 percent in the second quarter followed a June jobs report showing the third straight month with fewer than 100,000 jobs added to the workforce. Another jobs report is coming at the end of the week.
Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at UCLA, argues that Obama is tied to what has already happened this year. Voters' perceptions about the economy, she said, become baked by the end of the second quarter. That's bad news for the president, which is why Republican strategists such as Whit Ayers and Jon McHenry argue that "if the news doesn't get better by November, Obama doesn't win."
The economy isn't the only thing that will decide the election, but it's difficult to point to anything more important. It's the central tenet of Romney's candidacy and the reason Romney advisers remain confident that he will prevail in November, despite some of the problems he's had the past month.
In the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, Romney gets higher ratings on fixing the economy. The latest ad from the Republican National Committee is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger appeal to voters to get rid of the president. That ad ends with the line, "He tried. You tried. It's okay to make a change."
As Doug Rivers of Stanford University put it, the economy is "neither so bad that Obama is sure to lose nor so good that Obama is sure to win."
4Do Romney's wealth and business record make him more or less electable?
You'll get more debate about this than almost anything else about the campaign, much of it colored by partisanship. Republicans think that, in the end, Romney's business résumé is a plus and his wealth won't be held against him. Democrats think the combination could be decisive in keeping the president in office.
"Romney doesn't seem capable of feeling people's pain," said Democratic strategist Craig Varoga. "His work at Bain is a huge disability," added Steve Rosenthal, another Democratic strategist with longtime ties to the labor movement. Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said the way Romney has dealt with his wealth "is a negative in terms of being in touch."
Republicans disagree. "It definitely makes him more electable," said Hogan Gidley, a GOP strategist. Steve Grubbs, an Iowa Republican strategist, said Romney's business background, "will be a benefit no matter how much the president's team tries to trash it."
Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, said that, on balance given the polarized electorate, "it will mainly reinforce the views of each party's base - Republicans like it, Democrats don't."
Obama's campaign has pummeled Romney over his work at Bain Capital. The president's advisers are convinced the attacks are eroding Romney's image in the swing states. Romney advisers think dissatisfaction with the president and the economy will trump those attacks in the end.
But even a number of Republicans say Romney has to make a more effective case on behalf of his business record - and show more empathy as a candidate - to offset the Democrats' attacks.
5 With the conventions back-to- back, will either candidate get a real bounce in the polls?
The conventions will be held on consecutive weeks: Republicans in Tampa starting Aug. 27, Democrats starting a week later in Charlotte. Romney has the most at stake, the most work to do, and the biggest potential gain.
Conventions are anachronistic but still important. They're anachronistic because they lack drama, excitement or suspense. All the significant decisions have been made in advance, and the two nominees control all events and script them down to the minute.
But they are still important for many of the same reasons. Candidates can present themselves to the voters largely unfiltered. They write the script as they see fit. They tell the story the way they want it told. That sounds simple, but it isn't.
Some past conventions have changed the course of campaigns. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running third behind George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot the month before his convention but came roaring out of his convention ahead, thanks in part to Perot's unexpected decision to drop out of the race. George H.W. Bush helped turn around his campaign in 1988 with his "Read my lips, no new taxes" acceptance speech.
Republicans think that a successful convention will launch Romney into the final two months of campaigning. Democrats argue that Obama, by going second, will be able to rebut what happens in Tampa. But neither side expects lasting changes in the polls from the conventions.
6 Which campaign is likely to have the advantage in money?
When the campaign started, few thought Obama could be outspent by his Republican opponent. Lately, his campaign has been rattling the tin cup, singing a tale of woe about what Romney and the Republicans will do. The truth is, neither side will be short on money.
The president raised about $800 million in 2008 and will have about the same this year. Romney came out of the primaries with his campaign bank account nearly depleted, but he and the Republican National Committee have been raising money at a prodigious clip since then - faster than Obama and the Democrats.
There is so much money sloshing through this election that voters in the most contested states will be saturated with ads, phone calls, mail and knocks on the door. With the electorate already polarized, this amounts to too much money chasing too few voters.
Republican super PACs potentially give Romney the advantage - and give the Obama team nightmares. "This may be a decisive factor in the election," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist. "The president and his team will not be able to outspend Romney like they outspent McCain. That by itself will make this election a lot more like 2000 and 2004."
7How important are the debates likely to be this year?
That depends on whether you think debates ever really matter. They certainly mattered during the Republican nomination contest in the winter. Those 20 debates shaped the campaign and the fortunes of many of the candidates. Think Rick Perry.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan used his debate against Jimmy Carter to turn the election decisively in his direction. But some scholars say debates matter less than people think. "There just isn't much evidence that debates move the polls, or that any movement is truly consequential for who wins the race," said John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University.
Still, no one will be preparing for the debates as if they aren't potential turning points. In a close election, every encounter carries opportunities and risks. Bombarded by ads, voters may be looking for another way to evaluate Obama and Romney. "The three televised debates afford the only chance for undecided voters to do some unvarnished, unfiltered comparison shopping," said Bill Whalen of the Hoover Institution.
The first debate will be on Oct. 3 in Denver, the last on Oct. 22 in Boca Raton, Fla. Both candidates have shown strong debating skills. For Romney, the debates offer the chance to close the stature gap with an incumbent president. For Obama, they provide an opportunity to impress on voters that the election is a choice, not a referendum.
Decisive or not, the debates will dominate October.
8Which groups of voters do the two campaigns care about most?
Mobilizing their bases will be the first priority for Obama and Romney. With so few truly undecided voters available this year, turning out committed supporters becomes as important as persuading those still wavering.
For Obama, that means making sure he gets huge turnout again among African Americans (his advisers are confident that he will), that he motivates Hispanics to come out in big numbers and wins at least 65 percent of their votes. His biggest challenge is likely to be among young voters, who were so enthusiastic four years ago and aren't so engaged this year.
Romney needs the conservative base of his party motivated. Though he sometimes struggled with some of these voters, particularly evangelical Christians, in the primaries, all signs suggest that their deep dislike of the president will be enough to get them to the polls. Romney also needs a big vote among white non-college voters, particularly men. They don't much like the president, but if the Obama campaign's attacks on Romney's business record stick, some of them might not vote for the challenger.
Many strategists outside the campaigns say women could hold the key to victory in November. In general, Obama will do better among unmarried women, while Romney will do better among married women. But there will be a real battle over independent women, particularly suburban mothers.
Of course, not all voters will be treated equally. Based on where advertising dollars are being spent, most of the attention will be focused on voters in fewer than 10 states.
LOAD-DATE: July 29, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1494 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
July 29, 2012 Sunday
Met 2 Edition
Romney ad takes the trees but leaves the forest
BYLINE: Glenn Kessler
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04
LENGTH: 1046 words
"To say what he said is to say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple Computer or that Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft or that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor Company or that Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's or that Papa John's didn't build Papa John's Pizza. This is the height of foolishness. It shows how out of touch he is with the character of America."
- Mitt Romney, July 18, 2012
There are few original ideas in politics, just old arguments.
We were reminded of this as we considered the ruckus over comments by President Obama that his Republican rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, criticized as an attack on free enterprise. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee immediately began jabbing Obama on the campaign trail, and the Romney campaign rushed out an attack ad focused on Obama's words - though, as we shall see, it sliced and diced the president's quote to make it seem much worse.
We will stipulate that taking snippets of quotes and twisting them is an age-old political tactic. In May, _blankwe gave Two Pinocchios to Obama for performing out-of-context quote-snipping on Romney's words. But that doesn't make it right. Let's take a look at what Obama actually said and then how it has been interpreted.
The Facts
The president, during _blanka campaign speech in Roanoke, tried to make the case that wealthy people need to have higher taxes in order to help serve the public good. Here is what he said, with the words used in the Romney campaign ad in bold type:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back. They know they didn't - look,if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
The biggest problem with Romney's ad is that it leaves out just enough chunks of Obama's words - such as a reference to "roads and bridges" - so that it sounds like Obama is attacking individual initiative. The ad deceivingly cuts away from Obama speaking in order to make it seem as if the sentences follow one another, when in fact eight sentences are snipped away.
Suddenly, the word "that" appears as if it is referring to a business, rather than (apparently) to roads and bridges. (Granted, the president's grammar is off.)
But instead of blaming Obama for bad economics, maybe Romney should have called Obama a plagiarizer. That's because Obama's words seem suspiciously similar to a speech last year by Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, which became a YouTube sensation (almost 1 million views).
Here's what the Massachusetts Democrat said, making the point clearer than Obama did:
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. . . . Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
But, then, maybe Warren is the plagiarizer? Here's how President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it in _blanka message to Congress in 1935:
"Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort. The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market. Therefore, in spite of the great importance in our national life of the efforts and ingenuity of unusual individuals, the people in the mass have inevitably helped to make large fortunes possible. . . . Therefore, the duty rests upon the government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes."
In other words, this is an argument that Democrats have been making for decades, one that Republicans have every right to reject.
Romney, however, descends into silly season when he extrapolates Obama's quote and says that means Obama believes Steve Jobs did not build Apple Inc.
Here's what Obama _blanksaid when Jobs died earlier this year, "By building one of the planet's most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity."
That sounds like Obama believes that Jobs really did build his company. He did not mention the roads to Cupertino, Calif.
The Pinocchio Test
Obama certainly could take from lessons from Warren or Roosevelt on how to frame this argument in a way that is less susceptible for quote-snipping. And Romney certainly could answer Obama's argument by engaging in a serious discussion about whether the wealthy should pay much more in taxes as a matter of social good and equity. That would be grounds for an elevated, interesting and important debate.
But instead, by focusing on one ill-phrased sentence, Romney and his campaign have decided to pretend that Obama is talking about something different - and then further extrapolated it so that it becomes ridiculous. That's not very original at all.
kesslerg@washpost.com
Read previous Fact Checker columns at washingtonpost.com/factchecker.
LOAD-DATE: July 30, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1495 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
July 28, 2012 Saturday
The New York Times on the Web
In London, Sun May Be Iffy but Joy Will Be Real
BYLINE: By LYNN ZINSER
SECTION: Section ; Column 0; Sports Desk; LEADING OFF; Pg.
LENGTH: 761 words
As the Olympics' opening ceremony happens today, you will watch London come out of its shell. If you have been paying any attention at all, the run-up to this moment has been typically British: full of pessimism and complaining about the massive inconveniences, every flaw mined from every angle, harrowing predictions that the transit systems wouldn't work, the security would fall short, that London just wouldn't measure up.
As overwhelming as that all seemed, and Johnette Howard helps explain on ESPN.com how deeply that's a part of British character, it's also a front, behind which joy and pride are waiting, if not necessarily expecting, to leap out. Here's a flashback story for you:
In 2005, I was covering the bidding for these Games (you might remember, New York was ostensibly in the running) and as the five bidding cities and the International Olympic Committee gathered in Singapore for the vote, the mood about London's chances was relentlessly dour. The bid committee's press briefings were more like browbeatings. ''Why isn't Prince Harry more involved?!'' demanded one reporter of bid leader Sebastian Coe. Another asked then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, ''Brits don't win at anything. Why do you think this will be different?''
But when the announcement was made that London had swiped the Games out from under Paris, which had been the overwhelming favorite, the press room erupted in cheers. Those hard-bitten reporters who had been hammering Coe were hugging each other and crying. It was a front, and this is what's behind it.
That's what tonight's opening ceremony is going to be like. Forget the caterwauling, ignore the dire predictions. The joy will come pouring out. Welcome to London's Olympics.
Until then, of course, there is much to speculate about, starting with the mystery of who will light the cauldron. Roger Bannister remains the favorite, but the late surprise bet is now Queen Elizabeth, and if they can get her to run up steep stairs like Rafer Johnson did in Los Angeles in 1984, or run around the roof of the stadium like Li Ning did in Beijing, we'll be really impressed. Whoever it is, the British will revel in just how unlikely this whole spectacle was, as Paul Kelso recalls in The Telegraph what a longshot London was to stage this party.
The dirty little secret is that the Games have already started, with Spain already losing in early soccer action, and a blind archer from South Korea setting a world record in the rankings round, which also featured the first tickets snafu, with fans showing up not realizing they would not be allowed to watch.
But most of the action has been of the hot-air variety, headlined on Thursday by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney visiting London and making such a hash of his public comments about the Olympics that he prompted London Mayor Boris Johnson to tweak him in front of 60,000 people in Hyde Park and Prime Minister David Cameron to deadpan, ''Of course it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere,'' referring to the Romney-led Salt Lake City Games. Even American Olympic icon Carl Lewis dove into the fray, saying, ''I think some Americans shouldn't leave the country.'' The International and United States' Olympic committees did make a move to keep the presidential race out of things, banning an ad that used Olympic footage of Romney by a pro-Obama Super PAC.
Even British politicians, though, had a bit of trouble on Thursday, with culture secretary Jeremy Hunt suffering an Olympic bell mishap.
On the actual sporting front, Jamaican sprint star Usain Bolt finally spoke publicly in London, blaming some of his recent woes on a back injury. Which puts him in contrast with American challenger Tyson Gay, who feels fully healthy for the first time in a long time, Tim Layden writes on SI.com. Other athletes will be happy to know the I.O.C. will not be checking their underwear for potential ambush marketing.
Yes, these are all reasons to watch -- and SI.com's Richard Deitsch offers this helpful guide to following along on television and the Internet -- starting with today's opening ceremony. The Times will have a live blog that will be live from London, and then chronicle the broadcast tonight, so you can follow along with us.
Whenever you watch, expect a lovely show and a lot of joy.
A Leading Off programming note: We will be taking an Olympic break from the daily Leading Off feature, but follow our daily live coverage of all things Olympic on our stupendous London Games page.
Follow Leading Off on Twitter: twitter.com/zinsernyt
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: July 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1496 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times
July 28, 2012 Saturday
Late Edition - Final
Land Of the Mega-Voters
BYLINE: By GAIL COLLINS
SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; OP-ED COLUMNIST; Pg. 23
LENGTH: 793 words
Minot, N.D.
''No! No! No!'' cried Heidi Heitkamp. She's the Democratic senatorial candidate in North Dakota. I had just asked her whether residents of her state think it's unfair that, in the Senate, each North Dakota voter has the clout of approximately 50 Californians.
She doesn't.
That was the top thing I had always wondered about the politics of North Dakota, whose two U.S. senators serve a population of around 680,000. (Campaign-wise, it resembles the Iowa caucuses. Voters expect to have met the candidates personally. Sometimes they seem to expect the candidates to invite them home for dinner.)
I was wandering around the state this week, mulling its Senate race. Really, we can't possibly focus on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for another three months without an occasional reprieve.
So, North Dakota. Heitkamp, a former attorney general, is running against Representative Rick Berg, the state's sole member of the House. In the beginning, the national Democrats wrote this one off as a long shot at best, but Heitkamp seems to have, at minimum, pulled even. On the campaign trail, she's a happy warrior with the endless energy you'd need if you were running for office in a state where there's a two-hour drive between even the smaller clumps of voters. She also has a dramatic story that centers on the year 2000, when she ran for governor and was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer, but she stayed in the race, campaigning even while she had chemotherapy and her trademark red hair fell out. She lost but seems to have made an indelible imprint on the public.
(The other happy Senate surprise for the Democrats is Arizona, where the party somehow came up with a Hispanic physician who is a disabled Vietnam veteran and former surgeon general for the Bush administration, as well as the hero of several dramatic rescues, during one of which he shot a deranged suspected murderer. I believe I speak for all the political hopefuls in America when I say that the bar for a potential upset win is being set unacceptably high.)
As soon as the North Dakota Senate race began, Republican super PACs began beating Heitkamp with the health care mallet. ''Heidi endorsed Obamacare,'' says one much-aired ad that features a very brief tape of Heitkamp saying, with no apparent enthusiasm, ''It actually is a budget saver.'' In response, she almost always brings the discussion back to her own story. Her next ad began with Heitkamp discussing her bout with cancer and adding, ''When you live through that, political attack ads seem silly.''
''I have a pretty well-known pre-existing condition,'' she says dryly.
My second big North Dakota question was why, if the voters were really obsessed about the economy and jobs, jobs, jobs, the state wasn't tilting toward Obama. True, North Dakota hasn't gone for a Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson. But things are great! The unemployment rate is around 3 percent and close to zero in the areas around the booming oil industry. The farmers weren't hit by the drought, and their crops are going to be worth a fortune at harvest time.
Much of this good news occurred on the president's watch. Does he get credit? The answer, once again, is no, no, no.
''If Heidi is elected, I won't lose sleep. She'll do a great job,'' said E. Ward Koeser, the mayor of the oil-boom town of Williston, a Republican who has endorsed Berg. ''If Barack Obama gets elected, I'll lose sleep.''
''Leadership means you take people who are polarized and get them together. I don't think he was that good at building relations,'' said Heitkamp, trying to explain her state's antipathy toward Obama. ''When people are mad at me, I always try to stand next to them for 20 minutes. They can't stay mad.''
We will not try to envision the president using that tactic on John Boehner. But Heitkamp says she'll be voting for Obama in November -- because Mitt Romney supports the House Republican budget.
''People ask me why, and I point to that budget,'' she says.
In 2010, North Dakota voters were furious about the national debt and the horrors they'd heard about Obamacare, and they tossed out virtually every Democratic incumbent they could get their hands on. Now Heitkamp is betting that the House budget, with its Medicare restructuring and dramatic program cuts will seem even more radical to the emotionally conservative North Dakotans than the stimulus or health care law. ''There's $180 billion in farm cuts in there,'' she said, launching into a litany of government aid it would strip away from North Dakota.
Berg says the House budget is thrifty and represents the ''North Dakota way of doing things.'' We shall see. It's up to the North Dakota voters. A very small number of North Dakota voters.
Eat your heart out, California.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com
LOAD-DATE: July 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: Op-Ed
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 The New York Times Company
1497 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
Washingtonpost.com
July 28, 2012 Saturday 8:12 PM EST
Federal deficit projected to stay near $1 trillion
BYLINE: Lori Montgomery
SECTION: A section; Pg. A10
LENGTH: 781 words
The federal budget deficit will top $1.2 trillion this year and approach $1 trillion again next year under President Obama's policies, the White House said Friday in a report that added fuel to the election-year debate over job creation and government spending. The White House also forecast that the nation's unemployment rate would fall to 7.9 percent by the end of this year, which would mark the first time that the rate slipped below 8 percent since Obama took office in January 2009.
The administration's deficit projection for fiscal 2012, which ends in September, actually fell slightly from a previous forecast of $1.33 trillion. Part of the reason is that Congress did not adopt major pieces of the $447 billion jobs package that Obama proposed last fall.
But the White House projection for next year's budget gap jumped from $900 billion to $991 billion on the assumption that the remaining provisions of the package, including fresh cash for federal construction projects and new tax breaks for small businesses, would be enacted. The administration predicts that the deficit would plummet in 2014 under Obama's policies, settling at around $600 billion a year for the rest of the decade. Deficits of that size would allow Obama to meet his goal of stabilizing borrowing and would permit the national debt to start drifting downward when measured as a proportion of the overall economy.
But the debt would remain elevated by historical standards, stuck above 75 percent of gross domestic product for the rest of the decade. And with five straight years of trillion-dollar deficits, the report shows that Obama has fallen far short of his 2009 promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.
"Much like his record on jobs, the President's pledge to halve the deficit is a glaring broken promise," House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "This level of debt serves as a major roadblock to economic recovery and threatens our ability to meet the promises we've made to our seniors and most needy."
Government debt and its effect on the economy have been a focus of the presidential campaign pitting Obama against GOP challenger Mitt Romney. In its semiannual budget update, White House economists argued that the nation's budget outlook and its economic health are still suffering from the aftereffects of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
"Although Administration actions helped spark and sustain the ongoing recovery, the economy continues to face serious headwinds that have dampened growth and limited gains in employment," the report says. "Despite these headwinds, the Administration expects economic growth to continue at a moderate pace in 2012 and 2013 and to pick up in 2014."
The White House predicted that overall economic growth would slow somewhat from its last forecast in February, with GDP growing at an annual rate of 2.3 percent this year and at2.7 percent in 2013 under the president's policies. However, the White House predicted that unemployment would fall more rapidly than it forecast in February, when the jobless rate was already exceeding the administration's expectations.
Earlier Friday, the Commerce Department reported that the nation's GDP grew at a sluggish 1.5 percent from April to June - not enough to lower the unemployment rate, which stands at 8.2 percent.
Democrats warily defended the mixed forecast.
"No one should be surprised by this year's deficit, nor by the stubbornness of the economic recovery," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in a statement. "Without a doubt, the Great Recession that President Obama inherited has taken its toll on economic growth and, thus, on the nation's balance sheet. While the Federal response, which began under the last administration, averted an even worse calamity, the depth of the recession and the slow recovery means the country has been unable to dig out of the large deficit hole that this administration faced when it came into office."
Republicans, meanwhile, seized on the contrast between Obama's campaign message and his budget proposals, which would require the Treasury to borrow another $6.5 trillion from outside investors in the next decade.
"President Obama is currently running a campaign ad saying he has a plan to 'pay down the debt in a balanced way,' " said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate budget panel. "But his updated budget - submitted two weeks after the legal deadline - reveals just how dramatically false this claim is. . . . No change is proposed to our dangerously unsustainable debt course."
montgomeryl@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: July 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1498 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The Washington Post
July 28, 2012 Saturday
Suburban Edition
Federal deficit projected to stay near $1 trillion
BYLINE: Lori Montgomery
SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A10
LENGTH: 772 words
The federal budget deficit will top $1.2 trillion this year and approach $1 trillion again next year under President Obama's policies, the White House said Friday in a report that added fuel to the election-year debateover job creation and government spending.
The White House also forecast that the nation's unemployment rate would fall to 7.9 percent by the end of this year, which would mark the first time that the rate slipped below 8 percent since Obama took office in January 2009.
The administration's deficit projection for fiscal 2012, which ends in September, actually fell slightly from a previous forecast of $1.33 trillion. Part of the reason is that Congress did not adopt major pieces of the $447 billionjobs packagethat Obama proposed last fall.
But the White House projection for next year's budget gap jumped from $900 billion to $991 billion on the assumption that the remaining provisions of the package,including fresh cash for federal construction projects and new tax breaks for small businesses, would be enacted.
The administration predicts that the deficit would plummet in 2014 under Obama's policies, settling at around $600 billion a year for the rest of the decade. Deficits of that size would allow Obama to meet his goal of stabilizing borrowing and would permit the national debt to start drifting downward when measured as a proportion of the overall economy.
But the debt would remain elevated by historical standards, stuck above 75 percent of gross domestic product for the rest of the decade. And with five straight years of trillion-dollar deficits, the report shows that Obama has fallen far short of his 2009 promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.
"Much like his record on jobs, the President's pledge to halve the deficit is a glaring broken promise," House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "This level of debt serves as a major roadblock to economic recovery and threatens our ability to meet the promises we've made to our seniors and most needy."
Government debt and its effect on the economy have been a focus of the presidential campaign pitting Obama against GOP challenger Mitt Romney. In its semiannual budget update, White House economists argued that the nation's budget outlook and its economic health are still suffering from the aftereffects of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
"Although Administration actions helped spark and sustain the ongoing recovery, the economy continues to face serious headwinds that have dampened growth and limited gains in employment," the report says. "Despite these headwinds, the Administration expects economic growth to continue at a moderate pace in 2012 and 2013 and to pick up in 2014."
The White House predicted that overall economic growth would slow somewhat from its last forecast in February, with GDP growing at an annual rate of 2.3 percent this year and at2.7 percent in 2013 under the president's policies. However, the White House predicted that unemployment would fall more rapidly than it forecast in February, when the jobless rate was already exceeding the administration's expectations.
Earlier Friday, the Commerce Department reported that the nation's GDP grew at a sluggish 1.5 percent from April to June - not enough to lower the unemployment rate, which stands at 8.2 percent.
Democrats warily defended the mixed forecast.
"No one should be surprised by this year's deficit, nor by the stubbornness of the economic recovery," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in a statement. "Without a doubt, the Great Recession that President Obama inherited has taken its toll on economic growth and, thus, on the nation's balance sheet. While the Federal response, which began under the last administration, averted an even worse calamity, the depth of the recession and the slow recovery means the country has been unable to dig out of the large deficit hole that this administration faced when it came into office."
Republicans, meanwhile, seized on the contrast between Obama's campaign message and his budget proposals, which would require the Treasury to borrow another $6.5 trillion from outside investors in the next decade.
"President Obama is currently running a campaign ad saying he has a plan to 'pay down the debt in a balanced way,' " said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate budget panel. "But his updated budget - submitted two weeks after the legal deadline - reveals just how dramatically false this claim is. . . . No change is proposed to our dangerously unsustainable debt course."
montgomeryl@washpost.com
LOAD-DATE: July 28, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2012 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company, LLC d/b/a Washington Post Digital
All Rights Reserved
1499 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(DealBook)
July 27, 2012 Friday
Morning Take-Out
BYLINE: WILLIAM ALDEN
SECTION: BUSINESS
LENGTH: 2299 words
HIGHLIGHT: Highlights from the DealBook newsletter.
TOP STORIES
A Deeper Look at Facebook's Earnings Report | So. Facebook has reported its first earnings report as a public company. And investors apparently didn't like what they saw.
Even though the company essentially met analyst estimates for revenue and adjusted earnings per share, the social network's shares tumbled more than 10 percent in after-hours trading, falling at one point below $24 a share. That's an all-time low in Facebook's two-month existence as a publicly traded corporation.
What gives? There are a couple of interesting items from the earnings announcement, but one pattern that emerges is that Facebook's once-vaunted growth is slowing down.
DealBook »
Facebook Posts a Loss, but Revenue Beats Expectations | The bit of good news about revenue was not enough to stop Facebook's shares from plummeting in late trading on Thursday. "With the unprecedented hype around the company's I.P.O., some investors believe more upside would have materialized - higher revenues, higher earnings," said Jordan Rohan, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus, according to The New York Times.
NEW YORK TIMES
Facebook's Mobile Mania | After warning about mobile in the days before its I.P.O., Facebook trumpeted its mobile efforts in its earnings results, the first since it went public earlier this year.
DealBook »
Barclays' Profit Falls Amid Rate-Rigging Scandal | Barclays reported on Friday a 76 percent drop in its net profit during the first six months of the year after the British bank took an accounting charge on its own debt and other one-off costs.
The results come a month after Barclays announced a $450 million settlement with American and British authorities in connection to the manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor. A number of the bank's top executives, including its former chief executive, Robert E. Diamond Jr., resigned in the wake of the scandal, which involved some of the firm's traders and senior executives altering Libor submissions for financial gain.
Barclays disclosed on Friday that it was facing a number of class action lawsuits in the United States related to the manipulation of both Libor and the Euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor. The most recent lawsuit was filed at the beginning of July.
DealBook »
DEAL NOTES
Romney Addresses a Financial Crowd in London | In remarks at a fund-raiser at the Mandarin Oriental in Hyde Park, Mitt Romney avoided mentioning the scandal over the rigging of interest rates and called the Dodd-Frank law "unnecessary" and "overly burdensome," The New York Times reports.
NEW YORK TIMES
Greenwich to Assess Economic Impact of Hedge Funds | Officials in Greenwich, Conn., have called for a study of the impact that the financial industry has on the local economy, after the departure of a prominent hedge fund for Miami, The Stamford Advocate reports. "We're not taking these people for granted," said Peter Tesei, Greenwich's top elected official. "It's easy to vilify (them) based upon an image."
STAMFORD ADVOCATE
Europe's Central Banker Offers Assurances on the Euro | A comment by Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, buoyed markets, but analysts warned the lift could be short-lived. Mr. Draghi said: "Within our mandate, the E.C.B. is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough."
NEW YORK TIMES
Sign up for the DealBook Newsletter, delivered every morning and afternoon.
Mergers & Acquisitions »
Universal Considers Selling Prized Division | To help secure approval for its $1.9 billion takeover of EMI, the Universal Music Group may sell Parlophone Records, a move once considered unthinkable, the Media Decoder blog reports.
NEW YORK TIMES MEDIA DECODER
Korea Says It Received No Bids for Woori Stake | South Korea is encountering challenges in trying to sell a 57 percent stake in Woori Finance Holdings valued at $4.3 billion, Bloomberg News reports.
BLOOMBERG NEWS
Icahn Posts Win as CVR Energy Says It Had No Offers | Carl C. Icahn will get to keep -- and run -- CVR Energy, an oil refining company based in Texas, after a 60-day sale process failed to yield any credible bids.
DealBook »
United Technologies Closes $16.5 Billion Takeover | After agreeing to sell certain noncore assets, United Technologies closed its acquisition of the Goodrich Corporation on Thursday, Reuters reports.
REUTERS
Airline Integration Weighs on United's Profit | United Continental Holdings said the combination with Continental Airlines contributed to a fall in second-quarter profit, as the chief executive conceded that the company "added new stress to the system" by implementing various changes at once, The Associated Press reports.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Senator Raises Concerns Over Cnooc Deal | Senator Charles Schumer plans to tell Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, that the United States should challenge Cnooc's deal to acquire the Canadian firm Nexen, Reuters reports.
REUTERS
Boston's WGBH Acquires Public Radio International | The deal unites two of the country's largest public broadcasters, The New York Times writes. Financial terms were not disclosed.
NEW YORK TIMES
INVESTMENT BANKING »
Sanford Weill Flips the Script | The New York Times editorial board writes: "Sometimes, in a great national debate, the most powerful voices can be those of the converted. Think of Nixon to China or, more recently, President Obama's declaration of support for same-sex marriage. Now add to the list Sanford Weill, the financier who led the charge for the repeal of the 1933 law that separated commercial banks from investment banks."
NEW YORK TIMES
Wall Streeters Challenge Comments by Weill | "I don't buy it," said William Harrison, the former head of JPMorgan Chase. "It gets back to management and risk-taking, and you can screw that up at a small bank or a large bank."
REUTERS
Major Deals Help 2 Banks Outperform Larger Rivals | Lazard and Evercore Partners reported Thursday that their core mergers advisory businesses had held up well on the strength of several major transactions.
DealBook »
Evercore Profit Rises 19% on Advisory Gains | Evercore Partners' profit rose 19 percent in the second quarter, as the investment bank's core advisory business posted strong results.
DealBook »
Nomura Chief Quits Amid Insider Trading Scandal | The Japanese bank's chief executive, Kenichi Watanabe, and one of his top lieutenants resigned on Thursday in response to recent revelations that their employees abetted insider trading.
DealBook »
Nomura's Rank Among Deal Makers | Despite the distraction of an insider trading scandal that has resulted in the resignation of Nomura's chief executive, the investment bank has risen three places this year in the worldwide merger league tables.
DealBook »
Jefferies and Goldman Have Highest Pay on Wall Street | Jefferies set aside money in the first half of the year to pay employees an average of $228,407, and Goldman set aside an average of $225,789 for its workers, Bloomberg News reports.
BLOOMBERG NEWS
Fidelity Expands Into Securities Lending | The Wall Street Journal reports: "Mutual fund company Fidelity Investments is setting itself on a collision course with rivals by rolling out a pricing service designed to make the roughly $800 billion market for securities lending more transparent, according to people familiar with the firm's plans."
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Wells Fargo Plans to Expand Headcount in Asia | The bank said it would increase its workforce in Asia by at least 10 percent over the next three years, Bloomberg News reports.
BLOOMBERG NEWS
Greek Banks Hope Time Heals | Bloomberg News notes that a strategy by Greek banks brings to mind the ancient playwright Euripides.
BLOOMBERG NEWS
PRIVATE EQUITY »
Chinese Funds Said to Be Near Deal for Dexia Unit | Two Chinese private equity funds, Hony Capital and GCS Capital, are approaching a deal to buy the asset management arm of Dexia for about 500 million euros ($613.7 million), The Financial Times reports.
FINANCIAL TIMES
China Invests $500 Million With Blackstone | An arm of China's central bank that oversees currency reserves has committed $500 million to a real estate private equity fund managed by the Blackstone Group, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing unidentified people familiar with the matter.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Formula One's Uncertain Future | A legal scuffle surrounding the chairman of the Formula One Group has created a risk for the private equity firm CVC Capital, which sold a stake in the business in May, The Economist writes.
economist
Owner of Friendly's Plays Two Roles | The private equity firm Sun Capital Partners kept ownership of Friendly's parent company even after it filed for bankruptcy - because the firm was also the chain's biggest lender, The Wall Street Journal reports.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
British Buyout Firm Says It Is Cutting Costs | In a quarterly announcement on Friday, 3i said it was making progress with a cost-cutting initiative, as it tries to win back dissatisfied investors, Reuters reports.
REUTERS
HEDGE FUNDS »
Investors Press Hedge Funds Over Libor | Some of the world's biggest hedge funds are responding to concerns from investors by conducting internal investigations to show they were not involved in an effort to rig major interest rates, Reuters reports.
REUTERS
A Paulson Holding Suffers | NovaGold Resources, which is 13 percent owned by John A. Paulson's firm, fell 25 percent on Thursday after comments by the Barrick Gold Corporation, Bloomberg News reports. The decline may have translated into a $48.9 million loss for Mr. Paulson's firm.
BLOOMBERG NEWS
Hedge Funds Can't Figure Out Europe's Crisis | The Economist asks why the crisis in the euro zone has "not produced a Monsieur Paulson of its own? Despite more than two years of disarray, funds with double-digit returns are rare; those with triple-digit returns are unheard of."
ECONOMIST
Church of England's Pension Commits to Hedge Funds | The $1.7 billion pension fund of the Church of England has tapped Winton Capital, Bridgewater Associates and BlackRock Advisors to manage assets, Reuters reports.
REUTERS
Japanese Firm Pitches Pensions on Hedge Funds | Mizuho Global Alternative Investments, which offers clients access to overseas hedge funds, is trying to encourage Japanese pension funds to invest, at a time when pensions are cautious in the wake of a scandal at AIJ Investment Advisors, Bloomberg News reports.
BLOOMBERG NEWS
I.P.O./OFFERINGS »
Not Quite an I.P.O. Comeback | The Wall Street Journal writes: "A trio of firms put in largely lackluster showings Thursday as they hit the exchanges, demonstrating that the market can still be fickle."
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Singaporean Trust Moves Little on Debut | The Ascendas Hospitality Trust of Singapore traded at roughly the same value as its initial offering price, despite strong demand for the I.P.O., Reuters reports.
REUTERS
Steakhouse Company Reduces Size of I.P.O. | The Del Frisco's Restaurant Group reduced the number of shares it sold in its I.P.O. and priced them below its expected range, Reuters reports.
REUTERS
VENTURE CAPITAL »
Twitter Experiences Another Outage | The Bits blog writes: "A few short weeks after a software bug knocked Twitter offline, the service was unavailable to the majority, if not all, of its 140 million users for several hours on Thursday."
NEW YORK TIMES BITS
Forerunner Ventures Raises a $40 Million Fund | Forerunner, a venture capital firm whose employees are all female, said it attracted $40 million for its first institutional fund, The Wall Street Journal reports.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Online Learning Platform Raises $43 Million | Open English, which teaches English to non-native speakers, raised a financing round led by Insight Venture Partners, TechCrunch reports.
TECHCRUNCH
LEGAL/REGULATORY »
Scandals May Cost Banks Their Clout | Banks recovered their self-confidence and influence quickly after the financial crisis. But Floyd Norris of The New York Times says that they may fare worse after JPMorgan Chase's hedging losses and the Libor scandal.
DealBook »
Geithner Faces Senate on Rate-Rigging Scandal | Timothy F. Geithner, the United States Treasury secretary, vowed that authorities would forcefully pursue criminal investigations into some of the world's biggest banks.
DealBook »
Lloyds Receives Subpoenas Over Interest Rates | The British bank Lloyds became a focus of the investigation into the rate-rigging scandal, Reuters reports.
REUTERS
Proposed Settlement Asks Dewey's Former Partners for Cash | The Wall Street Journal reports: "On Thursday the team shutting down the firm briefed hundreds of former partners on a new, $90.4 million settlement plan intended to get ex-partners to fork over some of the cash they were paid in 2011 and 2012 as Dewey headed toward bankruptcy."
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Capital One Penalized Over Lending to Military Families | Capital One agreed to pay $12 million to resolve claims of violations in lending to military borrowers, Bloomberg News reports. The bank was also fined recently over claims it misled credit card customers.
BLOOMBERG NEWS
Trustee Disputes Fees in Lehman Bankruptcy | The Wall Street Journal reports: "Some Wall Street banks and hedge funds asking Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. to chip in for their legal fees aren't entitled to make such claims in the biggest Chapter 11 case of all time, a government bankruptcy watchdog is arguing."
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Madoff Trustee Looks to Distribute More Money | Irving H. Picard is requesting permission from a New York court to distribute an additional $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion to investors who lost money in Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme, The Associated Press reports.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sign up for the DealBook Newsletter, delivered every morning and afternoon.
LOAD-DATE: July 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved
1500 of 2097 DOCUMENTS
The New York Times Blogs
(Taking Note)
July 27, 2012 Friday
You Didn't Build That
BYLINE: ANDREW ROSENTHAL
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 526 words
HIGHLIGHT: The campaign story that won't go away.
Here's a timeline of the campaign story that won't go away:
At a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, on July 13, the president makes a "no man is an island" type argument: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business-you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Fox and Friends takes the sentence "If you've got a business-you didn't build that" out of context. Republican operatives claim the president insulted small business owners. Rush Limbaugh says the president "hates this country."
The Romney campaign launches a "my hands didn't build this" ad featuring a New Hampshire businessman and holds "we did build this" events in swing states.
The New Hampshire Union Leader reports that the star of "my hands didn't build that" received government help in the form of tax-exempt revenue bonds and government contracts.
The Tampa Bay Times reports that some businesses owners at "we did build this" events are also heavily dependent on government loans and contracts.
For Obama supporters, the story is exasperating because the word "that" in "you didn't build that" so clearly refers to "roads and bridges," not to businesses. In context, that's obvious. And it's exasperating because so many of the "builders" at the "we did build this" events seem like hypocrites-who benefit not only from taxpayer-financed roads, but from more direct government support, and still rail against a nonexistent insult to their self-sufficiency.
Finally it's exasperating because-I humbly submit-the story reveals a deep-but-basic difference in how liberals and conservatives view the world.
Liberals are more likely to believe that one's success in life depends not only on initiative but on family background and where you grew up (not just which country, but which neighborhood) and educational opportunities and luck. As Bill Gates, Sr. told Bill Moyers, "'You earned it' is really a matter of 'you earned it with the indispensable help of your government.' You earned it in this wonderful place. If you'd been born in West Africa, you would not have earned it. It would not have occurred. Your wealth is a function of being an American." Hard work, liberals think, is often not enough. Lots of unsuccessful people work very hard; lots of successful people don't.
Whereas conservatives (and I'm painting with a broad brush) are more likely to credit hard work, and to give primacy to individual agency.
In other words, liberals are more likely to believe that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that"-where "that" actually means your business (and not roads and bridges, as the president would have it). "You" played a very large part, but, to quote the president, "somebody along the line gave you some help." And is why this campaign story won't go away.
What Will President Obama Say?
How to Energize the Liberal Base
Job Creation vs. Profit Creation
The Osama bin Laden Question
Sarah Palin: Stop Using My Words Against Me
LOAD-DATE: July 27, 2012
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog
Copyright 2012 The News York Times Company
All Rights Reserved